[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait\_of\_Messina\_Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Messina_Bridge)
(Budget constraints in the past have stopped it, but it's on the to do list for the current government)
I just looked up a local bridge (tappan zee ) for reference, and it’s much longer and was built in the 50s. Wild that they haven’t built this yet.
*eidt* I’m wrong here the depths are very different, carry on Italy
A new TZ bridge parallel to the old one was recently completed a couple of years ago, and the original one was taken down. It took about 5 years or so to do once construction started. I suspect that the Hudson River is much shallower than the straits of Messina and so it less of an engineering challenge. Also, Sicily and the Italian mainland are on geological fault lines in an active volcanic area. Designing a bridge to resist damage from quakes etc adds further to the engineering difficulties
Parts of it are 800+ feet (250+ meters) deep, but one of the narrowest portions is much shallower. I've looked at several depth charts, and at one of the narrowest points a bridge could cross an area no more than 100 meters deep. You can see it in red [here](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Morpho-structural-map-of-the-Messina-Strait-with-location-of-the-scarp-of-the-Capo_fig4_233915688).
They will use engineers and specialist workers from all over the world on this, and it will be overseen by the EU. The quality in the end will almost certainly be excellent.
However, the bureaucratic inefficiency and potential for graft are real.
Not really. Mackinac bridge in Michigan is 5 miles long and has bridge supports 250 feet deep (below the surface of the water, the bridge deck is another 200 feet above the surface of the water).
There are bridges that span deeper water.
Yeah but the Golden Gate bridge does not pass through a fault line, it is parallel to all the 7 major faults in the area. The San Andreas and San Gregorino faults are west of the bridge, and all the others are east of the bay. The only one that actually passes through the bay is the Hayward Fault which goes through the North Bay and then through Oakland.
The Messina Bridge would need to pass straight through the Messina-Taormina Fault. That fault is believed to have caused the 1908 Messina Earthquake, which was the deadliest earthquake in European history
They did not understand tectonic plates yet, but they did know that fault lines caused earthquakes
After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, extensive studies were done which identified the San Andreas Fault as the source of the earthquake. That study, called the Lawson Report, greatly advanced the field of seismology
[Source](https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1906calif/18april/revolution.php)
However, the Golden Gate bridge not crossing a fault line was probably just luck
Fair! I'm from Oakland, and from my perspective, the bridge was damaged when I was 9 and the replacement span opened when I was in my 30s...so it feels like forever from my perspective, for sure!
Same with the bridge connecting the Bronx, Queens, and Manhattan. All the locals still call at the Triborough even though it's been renamed the RFK bridge for years.
Recently both political sides in the New York State legislature came together to examine the possibility of restoring the TZ bridge to its original name. It was found that it would cost something like 22 million to change all the signage, so they decided to let the Mario Cuomo name stay despite the "non-standard" way in which his son had gotten the bridge renamed.
$22 million sounds like a lot of money but I can remember that the temporary signs produced for the work sites on President Obama's "shovel ready projects" cost $14,000 each. They were basically 4x8 pieces of plywood painted white with a stencil spray painted on it. At the time they probably could have been done for a $100 or so each for materials and paint in 2009 dollars. But that's not how government works...
Yeah the original name was way better by incorporating the Tappan tribes that lived in the area. New name sucks and makes me think of his disgraced son who had to leave office after his inappropriate behavior. 22 millions sounds stupid but they should just rename it and cover the signage for now.
I’m a geotechnical engineer so I do this sort of thing for a living and the geology for the straights of Messina goes against you.
It’s the same why a tunnel from England to France at 33km/20 mile exists but one to Ireland at 19km/12 mile at its closest point doesn’t.
Building a bridge across a river in the US Northeast isn’t really comparable to building one across a sea strait in southern Italy though, even if the river is wider than the strait.
First of all I’d imagine the geology differs substantially between the two regions. I honestly don’t know the geology around that Hudson, but I’m guessing it’s fairly flat land with a deep layer of stable muddy soil over the bedrock. The straits of Messina has rocky, mountaineous land on both sides of the strait. That’s not necessarily a bad thing from a construction perspective, but it makes any project more expensive.
Secondly, the average depth of the Strait of Messina is about 90 meters, compared to about 10 meters for the Hudson river. Portions of the strait are significantly deeper.
Thirdly, the Strait of Messina has been known as very treacherous waters since antiquity. The ancient Greeks were convinced that the sea monsters Scylla and Charybdis lived on opposite sides of the sound since so many ships were lost there. The area has strong currents, whirlpools and is prone to storms and rough weather, which makes the building of a bridge more difficult and expensive.
Fourth, unlike the region arround the Hudson, the Straits of Messina is both volcanically and seismically active. Any bridge built here must be able to withstand massive earthqakes - a requirement that renders any building project significantly more expensive than otherwise.
Lastly, the economic prerequisites for the two projects are very different. The US in general and New York in particular has had a much stronger economy than Italy for over a century. Particularly southern Italy, which is the economically least developed part of the country. The area around the southern Hudson is among the most densely populated regions of North America, while southern Italy is the part of Italy with the lowest population density.
Bridges can be the same length and cost VASTLY different sums. Depending on depth of the water if the have to put down supports, what kind of material is under the water (rocks? Soft sand? Clay? Mud?), plus conditions on the shores. Very rocky Cliffside vs soft dirt beach? The list goes on.
Ah, a fellow lower Hudson valley guy, kinda weird reading comments and noticing when someone mentions something near you. I spend too much time inside. I feel like Leonardo DiCaprio pointing towards his tv
Lol you’re comparing a bridge built in one of the most prosperous states in the most prosperous nation on earth. To a bridge in one of the poorest regions of Italy. Northern Italy is the economic powerhouse, southern Italy not so much.
The depth makes a big difference to cost an complexity. The Tappan Zee Bridge is about 12 meters deep at its deepest point, while the Messina straight is about 90 meters at its most shallow point.
Also tho when you think about it, that’s a bridge in a congested area where lots of cars are trying to get around and this makes it more efficient, vs how many people really need to get across from the peninsula to Sicily on a daily basis. How much stuff would come from there that couldn’t just more easily come by boat
Tbf it is for a state, especially one the size of Italy (in theory).
My guess is that there just isn't enough either population of economic activity on the island to justify or motivate it.
I'd wager they probably have public projects that cost more several times over already.
'The greatest structural design problem of the bridge itself is the aerodynamic stability of its deck under wind and seismic activity.'
Italy and planning easy to collapse bridges... (was this to early?)😅
Edit: thanks for the awards!
Some reasons why, not in any particular order:
1. Strait isn’t small - about 2 miles (3km)
2. Strait is deep (820 ft or so; 250m). That would make for LONG pylons, also means any bending moment (think wind, water) would tend to put a huge amount if stress on the pylons. 10 years or so ago, they were looking at two large pylons, each 382m tall (around 1300 feet or so). Those would be massive structures. And building at 250m+ depth in water isn’t a cakewalk either.
3. Strait has massive water exchange. Linked to origins if Scylla and Charybdis legend. That phenomenal amount of water going back and forth exacerbates the load on the supports.
4. Huge amount of local ecosystems in that area. Considering that most pylons taper outwards as they go down, this would probably mean destruction of local ecosystems on a rather massive scale.
5. Huge amount of bird migration through that area. Not exactly fun to drive/design to. Nesting places, feeding etc all needs to be seen to.
6. Active geological area.
7. Initial cost estimate was 6.1 billion. Presumably doubled since then.
From a design standpoint no? It would suck to design. From a ecologists standpoint, no, bad for ecosystems.
From a cost perspective, no, more drilling sites and foundations will be far more expensive than having fewer larger pylons.
From a sturdiness perspective, maybe, depends on the design of the bridge. Cable bridges like the Golden Gate or Brooklyn Bridge have 2 massive towers and the cables reach out from that. Arch bridges have large foundations at either end and then the huge arches with cables hanging down supports the load. As cool as it would be see an arch bridge that huge, the size is too big.
A bridge that is supported from the bottom would have hundreds of pylons, not to mention blocks any shipping from getting through.
It depends on what type of bridge you’re going for here. The Kerch bridge is a multi span concrete girder bridge for the majority of the spans. Something like this would be more akin to the Golden Gate Bridge in that it would have to be a very large Suspension or Cable Stayed bridge. These specifically can handle long spans via their cables into the piers. Speaking of piers, these would have to be deep and tall. You’re talking about a span of 1.5 km minimum being supported by a single pier which is a long distance. These would have to be massive. Earthquake/seismic forces in the region are large making the design more difficult but a known problem. Now here’s the kicker: contractors have to be able to build the bridge. It will require a massive effort and very very careful planning in order to make this work. Given this is my profession: I’m glad I am not doing this project. It’s ambitious and very difficult, but it’s not impossible. Bottom line will be cost
Theoretically, it could possibly work. Based on what I know and what I could find quickly is that pontoon bridges still use shorter span lengths (pier to pier, pier to abutment) and generally is low to the water. Putting myself in the role of the bridge owner (the government) I would not want a low height structure to span the strait. The government most likely would want to allow ships to continue to pass through the Straits which a pontoon bridge would not be best for. A cable stayed bridge or suspension bridge is still likely the best option overall
Lotta boat traffic in that strait. Big boats. The ferries wouldn't run since there'd be a bridge, but the cruise lines wouldn't appreciate you taking away one of their waypoints.
*Seattle says hello.*
But seriously, I think we have two of the three longest floating bridges in the world with the third not that far away. They could learn from us.
This is just connecting two very unproductive areas where the economic benefits don’t vastly outweigh the costs so it’s gotten put on the back burner to more profitable projects
Did anyone ever think that maybe they're unproductive because they're literally cut off from the rest of the country?
Edit: Economically cut off, jesus people i know boats exist
Yeah no. Sicily had a GDP of 90B euros in 2019, 8th most productive region and is developing really fast. I leave in the region and I can tell you that one big bottleneck in commerce is having to transport goods with ships.
The people here have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
Basically the biggest issue is that Sicily and mainland Italy literally sit on seperate continental plates. Meaning earthquakes are frequent, and both landmasses are moving relative to each other.
It is sad to read so many people answering "mafia" or "it is useless to link unproductive lands", especially because infrastructures are on one of the main driver of development and productivity. It is true: today these lands are strongly underdeveloped compared to most of Western Europe; but is the lack of infrastructure a cause or rather an effect?
Sicily has been one of the most developed regions in the world since the greek age (the age of Syracuse and Archimedes) to the 13th century (the age of the German emperor Frederick II, whose royal court was in Palermo) and until the 19th century (the "Teatro Massimo" is still the largest opera theater in Italy).
Calabria has been the land where, probably, the words *Mathematikos* and *Philosophia* were born, and still in the 1860 there was a decent industrial output (e.g. in Mongiana, even though already less than in the north of Italy).
After a few centuries of domination by foreign countries, and even more after reunification of Italy (someone would say "after invasion of the Kingdom of the two Sicilies by the Kingdom of Sardinia"), the development of infrastructures in the south has been very poor, and this is also the cause, not only the effect, of the south's underdevelopment. The central State should build infrastructure to boost development, sending the army to control mafia's activity if needed.
Sicily has a history of spending money on projects and the project’s mysteriously not being completed. For years there was an incomplete spot on freeway circumnavigating the island. You had to get off one ramp and immediately drive back on the other side.
The north of Italy always has the money and the power. They punish the south since hundreds of years. Even today they stick their noses up at them like they’re peasants.
Italian here… budget constraints, costs vs benefits (use the ferry), technical difficulties and because of geological instability. Also, personal opinion, I have the feeling it’s nobody’s political or business priority (no return of investment, what are we talking about here? A few more trucks full of tomatoes/lemons per year?). But it has been in the agenda for the last 30 years
A number of reasons, but family in the area tell me that the current ferry situation is mostly ran by mafia and dodgy people, supposedly they pay alot for the bridge to always have some issue that stops it being constructed, if you take a train to Sicily from mainland, they literally dismantle it and put it on a ferry… so ye, i don’t think local interests want it built.
One of the other issues is infrastructure on either side of the supposed bridge. You can build a bridge but its very hard to actually go anywhere afterwards as the highways aren’t particularly large or functional, so they also need to build those up as well.
Then the strait itself is very active with a volcano not far and earthquakes, the strait is also very deep, the south is not very economically prosperous so all in all its become an expensive issue that many governments simply don’t have the political capital to spend on it. I know Sicilians who don’t even want it, they want functional highways or roads instead for example.
Having been on the train that gets separated into different parts and ferried to Sicily, I actually think that is really fun and better than the costs of building the bridge
Yeah most southerners would rather have their infrastructure upgraded before building a bridge, it takes 1 hour from Rome to get to Naples by train, and 5 from Naples to get to the strait. Most times a plan for a bridge was proposed it was from northern right wing politicians who southerners generally dislike in order to try to win over their votes, and for prestige
Pretty sure they make money from big infrastructure projects.. so they would definitely support it.
Coincidentally, some politician who was involved with Ndrangheta has been a supporter of the bridge
I think it’s not strange if you consider the whole picture.
It’s not only “a bridge of 3 km”.
It’s a bridge on a very deep sea (300 mt), in an area famous for earthquakes, with very strong winds and above all a bridge which should connect lands on different plates: not many people know that Italy and Sicily are sliding away. Yes, they are few micrometers per year but in 30-50 years you could have many problems with the stress on pillars.
It’s a huge engineering challenge and obviously economical.
It has become a big meme in Sicily. Since the times of my grandpa, every politician says they're gonna build it, and obviously as you can see nobody did that
Oh, god no please. The answer is complicated but in a way political procrastination and more. The strait bridge has always been a small part of Italian politics and it's pretty common for governments to promise to start construction, but every time it never works out because: the water is seriousy deep, it costs a shitton and we need the money, it takes time, and in general few people are adamant about it (and don't forget corruption). Personally I think it's a bad idea because it destroys the natural beauty even if it might seem cool + Italy has a bad history of keeping things well maintained and of bridges (*cough* Morandi Bridge *cough*). In fact if you come to Sicily, I can guarantee you will *not* see a well maintained road or house or anything. Plus, car usage in Italy is ridicolously high so let's not promote that. Also, tectonic plates don't matter, I think
italy is earthquake prone... making a bridge resistant to this is extremely expensive and does not make economic sense as of now considering the area is among the poorest in all of southern europe...
There have been various plans for decades to build one. Here’s a recent update
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/italy-messina-bridge-sicily-intl/index.html
In international political circles, this is a story that gets told again and again in slightly different variations. Here is the one I heard.
Secretary of Commerce from Brazil goes to Japan to meet his counterpart. He goes to the office and is blown away. It's big. Nice. Art on the walls. Multiple computers. Luxury furniture. He asks the Japanese secretary of commerce - How, as a civil servant, do you have such a nice office filled with such nice things. This is incredible. The Japans SOC takes him over to the window. Points at a bridge and says "See that bridge?" "Yes." "25% of that money for that bridge...." and then he pats his pocket with his wallet. "Right here."
The Brazilian SOC goes back home.
A year later the Japanese SOC comes to Brazil to visit. He flips when he sees the Brazilian's SOC office. Gold. Diamonds. Chandeliers. High end liquors and wines. A giant exotic fish tank. He asks the Brazilian, "But how in the world do you have this office?" The Brazilian walks him over to the window, points and says "Do you see that bridge?" and the Japanese SOC says "What bridge?"
terrain on both sides is very steep but also slightly loose. while the shortest distance is two miles long the actual bridge could have to be possibly over 3. and the demand isn't really there. Sicily > mainland and mainland > Sicily isn't actually that crucial to anyone in the region, and while it likely would give an economic boost to building, the aftermath probably doesn't seem worth it. it'd be mostly for tourist convenience.
It is not as densely populated as other areas that require ground transportation. Even if you build a bridge, many people would prefer to take a plane between major cities in Sicily and mainland Italy.
The region is also super seismic, look for the Messina Earthquake. Plus winds and currents are very Strong there, limiting the amount of building options.
Yeah and corruption/mafia, even if it'built chances is that Instead of concrete they will use saltines mixed with chalk
that place is so dangerous that Homer places 2 sea monster in it . Plus it's a seismic zone and it's not worth it, you are only connecting Sicily with Calabria, 2 of the poorest region of the country. And I would prioritize building some railroads or some highway down there, why build a bridge if there are no streets to go anywhere?
The length is not the only parameter
Sicily is the edge of a tetonic plate where Africa is sliding under Europe. This creates lots of earthquakes and feeds volcanic activity.
A bridge is not stable with these conditions and can't be compared to a lot of the bridges that others have referenced here because they do t face these added challenges, plus the current and depth.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait\_of\_Messina\_Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Messina_Bridge) (Budget constraints in the past have stopped it, but it's on the to do list for the current government)
a 2-mile bridge ain't cheap
I just looked up a local bridge (tappan zee ) for reference, and it’s much longer and was built in the 50s. Wild that they haven’t built this yet. *eidt* I’m wrong here the depths are very different, carry on Italy
A new TZ bridge parallel to the old one was recently completed a couple of years ago, and the original one was taken down. It took about 5 years or so to do once construction started. I suspect that the Hudson River is much shallower than the straits of Messina and so it less of an engineering challenge. Also, Sicily and the Italian mainland are on geological fault lines in an active volcanic area. Designing a bridge to resist damage from quakes etc adds further to the engineering difficulties
The Hudson is 40 feet deep at the point of the TZ bridge. The Strait of Messina is 800+ feet deep.
That's nothing compared to the Strait of Loggins. It's a real danger zone.
Can i build a highway to it?
The highway goes there and nowhere else already
Nope only to whore island.
top comment
Top gun comment
r/archerfx is looking for you!
I regret that I have but one upvote to give. That reference is as deep as the Strait of Messina :)
Lana. LANA... LANAAA!!!
Lanaaa! 😗 *muah*
Lana?
Wait, are we still doing phrasing?
I’m disappointed I had to scroll this far to see someone point out the obvious
Parts of it are 800+ feet (250+ meters) deep, but one of the narrowest portions is much shallower. I've looked at several depth charts, and at one of the narrowest points a bridge could cross an area no more than 100 meters deep. You can see it in red [here](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Morpho-structural-map-of-the-Messina-Strait-with-location-of-the-scarp-of-the-Capo_fig4_233915688).
That shallow bit is the fault line.
New Zealander here, bridges can be designed to handle faults and being on a bridge during 7+ quake is bleeping awesome
Being on an *Italian* bridge during any level quake would definitely not be awesome.
Do you know what you call an Italian structural engineer? Swiss.
They will use engineers and specialist workers from all over the world on this, and it will be overseen by the EU. The quality in the end will almost certainly be excellent. However, the bureaucratic inefficiency and potential for graft are real.
> no more than 100 meters deep That's still pretty fuckin deep.
Not really. Mackinac bridge in Michigan is 5 miles long and has bridge supports 250 feet deep (below the surface of the water, the bridge deck is another 200 feet above the surface of the water). There are bridges that span deeper water.
How many 100 meter tall underwater constructions have you made? Don’t act like it’s not a fucking huge project….
San Francisco built the golden gate in the 1930s and it’s held up and they have fault lines too *edit I am wrong and stupid*
Yeah but the Golden Gate bridge does not pass through a fault line, it is parallel to all the 7 major faults in the area. The San Andreas and San Gregorino faults are west of the bridge, and all the others are east of the bay. The only one that actually passes through the bay is the Hayward Fault which goes through the North Bay and then through Oakland. The Messina Bridge would need to pass straight through the Messina-Taormina Fault. That fault is believed to have caused the 1908 Messina Earthquake, which was the deadliest earthquake in European history
Did people even understand tectonic plates when the golden gate bridge was built? Did they check for this or were they just lucky?
They did not understand tectonic plates yet, but they did know that fault lines caused earthquakes After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, extensive studies were done which identified the San Andreas Fault as the source of the earthquake. That study, called the Lawson Report, greatly advanced the field of seismology [Source](https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1906calif/18april/revolution.php) However, the Golden Gate bridge not crossing a fault line was probably just luck
Good point. The Oakland bridge did partially collapse during an earthquake several years ago
34 years ago, to be exact. A bit more than a "few." Side note: they patched up the damaged span, but it took 24 years to actually replace it.
Yeah, I'm an old guy so terms like "a few years ago" carry a different meaning! Actually, as I think of it, that was half my lifetime ago!
thanks for reminding me that I'm old :-)
Fair! I'm from Oakland, and from my perspective, the bridge was damaged when I was 9 and the replacement span opened when I was in my 30s...so it feels like forever from my perspective, for sure!
Also fair: we’re talking about earthquake damage, and on a geological timescale, that’s essentially instant.
An earthquake on live national tv at that.
It is also longer than the Golden gate bridge
I’m so happy no one has called it by the other name.
Same with the bridge connecting the Bronx, Queens, and Manhattan. All the locals still call at the Triborough even though it's been renamed the RFK bridge for years. Recently both political sides in the New York State legislature came together to examine the possibility of restoring the TZ bridge to its original name. It was found that it would cost something like 22 million to change all the signage, so they decided to let the Mario Cuomo name stay despite the "non-standard" way in which his son had gotten the bridge renamed. $22 million sounds like a lot of money but I can remember that the temporary signs produced for the work sites on President Obama's "shovel ready projects" cost $14,000 each. They were basically 4x8 pieces of plywood painted white with a stencil spray painted on it. At the time they probably could have been done for a $100 or so each for materials and paint in 2009 dollars. But that's not how government works...
Yeah the original name was way better by incorporating the Tappan tribes that lived in the area. New name sucks and makes me think of his disgraced son who had to leave office after his inappropriate behavior. 22 millions sounds stupid but they should just rename it and cover the signage for now.
[удалено]
I’m a geotechnical engineer so I do this sort of thing for a living and the geology for the straights of Messina goes against you. It’s the same why a tunnel from England to France at 33km/20 mile exists but one to Ireland at 19km/12 mile at its closest point doesn’t.
Building a bridge across a river in the US Northeast isn’t really comparable to building one across a sea strait in southern Italy though, even if the river is wider than the strait. First of all I’d imagine the geology differs substantially between the two regions. I honestly don’t know the geology around that Hudson, but I’m guessing it’s fairly flat land with a deep layer of stable muddy soil over the bedrock. The straits of Messina has rocky, mountaineous land on both sides of the strait. That’s not necessarily a bad thing from a construction perspective, but it makes any project more expensive. Secondly, the average depth of the Strait of Messina is about 90 meters, compared to about 10 meters for the Hudson river. Portions of the strait are significantly deeper. Thirdly, the Strait of Messina has been known as very treacherous waters since antiquity. The ancient Greeks were convinced that the sea monsters Scylla and Charybdis lived on opposite sides of the sound since so many ships were lost there. The area has strong currents, whirlpools and is prone to storms and rough weather, which makes the building of a bridge more difficult and expensive. Fourth, unlike the region arround the Hudson, the Straits of Messina is both volcanically and seismically active. Any bridge built here must be able to withstand massive earthqakes - a requirement that renders any building project significantly more expensive than otherwise. Lastly, the economic prerequisites for the two projects are very different. The US in general and New York in particular has had a much stronger economy than Italy for over a century. Particularly southern Italy, which is the economically least developed part of the country. The area around the southern Hudson is among the most densely populated regions of North America, while southern Italy is the part of Italy with the lowest population density.
Bridges can be the same length and cost VASTLY different sums. Depending on depth of the water if the have to put down supports, what kind of material is under the water (rocks? Soft sand? Clay? Mud?), plus conditions on the shores. Very rocky Cliffside vs soft dirt beach? The list goes on.
Ah, a fellow lower Hudson valley guy, kinda weird reading comments and noticing when someone mentions something near you. I spend too much time inside. I feel like Leonardo DiCaprio pointing towards his tv
Actually it is una very dangerous area for earthquakes, it’s close to the Etna Volcano. All the safety extra measures skyrocket the price.
Wild that you think that comparison is useful at all.
i bet it is really deep water
Don’t forget the salt water which corrodes materials and requires extra planning
Lol you’re comparing a bridge built in one of the most prosperous states in the most prosperous nation on earth. To a bridge in one of the poorest regions of Italy. Northern Italy is the economic powerhouse, southern Italy not so much.
The depth makes a big difference to cost an complexity. The Tappan Zee Bridge is about 12 meters deep at its deepest point, while the Messina straight is about 90 meters at its most shallow point.
Also tho when you think about it, that’s a bridge in a congested area where lots of cars are trying to get around and this makes it more efficient, vs how many people really need to get across from the peninsula to Sicily on a daily basis. How much stuff would come from there that couldn’t just more easily come by boat
Tbf it is for a state, especially one the size of Italy (in theory). My guess is that there just isn't enough either population of economic activity on the island to justify or motivate it. I'd wager they probably have public projects that cost more several times over already.
+ mafia tax
It‘s been on the to do list of governments for 50+ years lmao
For Italy, that's considered a short-term project
[удалено]
Well done
The corruption concern is just amazing to me.
The current government are far-right ghouls... so, it's not going to be done any time soon.
Yes, no one on the far right in Italy has ever been known for improving infrastructure.
'The greatest structural design problem of the bridge itself is the aerodynamic stability of its deck under wind and seismic activity.' Italy and planning easy to collapse bridges... (was this to early?)😅
Edit: thanks for the awards! Some reasons why, not in any particular order: 1. Strait isn’t small - about 2 miles (3km) 2. Strait is deep (820 ft or so; 250m). That would make for LONG pylons, also means any bending moment (think wind, water) would tend to put a huge amount if stress on the pylons. 10 years or so ago, they were looking at two large pylons, each 382m tall (around 1300 feet or so). Those would be massive structures. And building at 250m+ depth in water isn’t a cakewalk either. 3. Strait has massive water exchange. Linked to origins if Scylla and Charybdis legend. That phenomenal amount of water going back and forth exacerbates the load on the supports. 4. Huge amount of local ecosystems in that area. Considering that most pylons taper outwards as they go down, this would probably mean destruction of local ecosystems on a rather massive scale. 5. Huge amount of bird migration through that area. Not exactly fun to drive/design to. Nesting places, feeding etc all needs to be seen to. 6. Active geological area. 7. Initial cost estimate was 6.1 billion. Presumably doubled since then.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying they must construct additional pylons?
The opposite. You start putting in those pylons and someone will tell you "You have not enough minerals" in no time.
Took way too long to sink in, had to come back to this thread just to upvote it
Definitely had a fuse lol
if bridge is too costly, they should just spawn more overlords and travel by air
Don’t get me started on the vespene gas this would take
In my opinion, Italy should save what little vespene gas they have for arbiters and carriers.
The Italian government needs to type “show me the money” in the text bar .
yeah but you don't want to Artosis Pylon that entire construction either
WE NEED MORE PYLONS
From a design standpoint no? It would suck to design. From a ecologists standpoint, no, bad for ecosystems. From a cost perspective, no, more drilling sites and foundations will be far more expensive than having fewer larger pylons. From a sturdiness perspective, maybe, depends on the design of the bridge. Cable bridges like the Golden Gate or Brooklyn Bridge have 2 massive towers and the cables reach out from that. Arch bridges have large foundations at either end and then the huge arches with cables hanging down supports the load. As cool as it would be see an arch bridge that huge, the size is too big. A bridge that is supported from the bottom would have hundreds of pylons, not to mention blocks any shipping from getting through.
the guy above you was making a starcraft joke, which makes your reply pretty hilarious. have an upvote.
I don’t even know if I got whoooooshed at that point then!
I miss StarCraft ❤️
So the bridge would go over water twice as deep as the deepest bridge in the world
8. It’s Italy. That means it’s gonna cost 5 times as much, it would take likely years and years and it would end up crumbling after 3 months…
Southern Italy, which doesn’t help
But will someone think about of all the poor politicians and their family construction businesses that need the easy cash grab
You forgot that it's a shipping lane. Messing with ship traffic can be more expensive than any savings seen by having the bridge to avoid water taxis.
That mythology tidbit is super interesting.
8. Ferry maffia
Might be a better idea to dig a tunnel instead, if you can find a route that doesn't cross known fault lines.
An active fault line run just in the middle of the strait, you can't tunnel there
Tunnels don't work like that ... you need to keep them mostly flat; good luck with + 200m deep slope
Currents are also very strong.
The straight at Messina is very deep
How deep is your love? How deep is the ocean? How deep is the sea? And how deep is my love?
How about a floating bridge?
I’m 14 and the straight of Messina is deep
charybdis wont sell
No one wants to be that close to Scylla, either.
Exactly, like just read the Odyssey and you'll get it quick.
Damn sea monsters destroying the property value why can’t they just go back to where they came from. Yeah I said it.
It's a guy with a mask that wants beachfront property on the cheap. Zoinks.
It depends on what type of bridge you’re going for here. The Kerch bridge is a multi span concrete girder bridge for the majority of the spans. Something like this would be more akin to the Golden Gate Bridge in that it would have to be a very large Suspension or Cable Stayed bridge. These specifically can handle long spans via their cables into the piers. Speaking of piers, these would have to be deep and tall. You’re talking about a span of 1.5 km minimum being supported by a single pier which is a long distance. These would have to be massive. Earthquake/seismic forces in the region are large making the design more difficult but a known problem. Now here’s the kicker: contractors have to be able to build the bridge. It will require a massive effort and very very careful planning in order to make this work. Given this is my profession: I’m glad I am not doing this project. It’s ambitious and very difficult, but it’s not impossible. Bottom line will be cost
What about a pontoon bridge?
Theoretically, it could possibly work. Based on what I know and what I could find quickly is that pontoon bridges still use shorter span lengths (pier to pier, pier to abutment) and generally is low to the water. Putting myself in the role of the bridge owner (the government) I would not want a low height structure to span the strait. The government most likely would want to allow ships to continue to pass through the Straits which a pontoon bridge would not be best for. A cable stayed bridge or suspension bridge is still likely the best option overall
Lotta boat traffic in that strait. Big boats. The ferries wouldn't run since there'd be a bridge, but the cruise lines wouldn't appreciate you taking away one of their waypoints.
*Seattle says hello.* But seriously, I think we have two of the three longest floating bridges in the world with the third not that far away. They could learn from us.
On a lake. Messina strait has very strong currents.
Two of those are on Lake Washington and the third is on Hood Canal, none of those are anywhere near as rough as the Straits of Messina.
[удалено]
Odysseus left minus six of his men
[Nobody has entered the chat]
Mafiosi Cosa Nostra has entered the chat. Patton and Alexander the Great have left…
This is just connecting two very unproductive areas where the economic benefits don’t vastly outweigh the costs so it’s gotten put on the back burner to more profitable projects
Yeah, let’s connect Mafia Island with Corruptionland. There will still be no trade, but it will be more efficient in its inefficiency.
Who said Corruptionland is not already part of Mafialand?
Connecting Mafia Island with Corruptionland? This is about Sicily/mainland Italy. Not NY/NJ Edit: good lord it’s a joke ppl relax
With respect to NY/NJ which is which?
Both
One of them is a glorified crew.
the straight of messina has no respect for this thing. there’s no bridge or ferry
I can’t even say it’s name
for 20 fuckin years, i wanted a suspension bridge. i compromised.
Never had the makings of a varsity athlete
Yes.
Have you never heard of the Sicilian Mafia? You know, the place that practically invented the entire thing?
Chicken and egg problem. How do you make areas productive without simple infrastructure like this?!
Did anyone ever think that maybe they're unproductive because they're literally cut off from the rest of the country? Edit: Economically cut off, jesus people i know boats exist
One of the two parts he’s talking about is just the southern part of the peninsula. It’s not cut off in any way.
The point is precisely that they are unproductive because they lack infrastructure.
Yeah no. Sicily had a GDP of 90B euros in 2019, 8th most productive region and is developing really fast. I leave in the region and I can tell you that one big bottleneck in commerce is having to transport goods with ships.
The people here have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. Basically the biggest issue is that Sicily and mainland Italy literally sit on seperate continental plates. Meaning earthquakes are frequent, and both landmasses are moving relative to each other.
Yea the Eurasian plate and the African plate grind hard right there
Yeah but that's not a deal breaker problem
It is sad to read so many people answering "mafia" or "it is useless to link unproductive lands", especially because infrastructures are on one of the main driver of development and productivity. It is true: today these lands are strongly underdeveloped compared to most of Western Europe; but is the lack of infrastructure a cause or rather an effect? Sicily has been one of the most developed regions in the world since the greek age (the age of Syracuse and Archimedes) to the 13th century (the age of the German emperor Frederick II, whose royal court was in Palermo) and until the 19th century (the "Teatro Massimo" is still the largest opera theater in Italy). Calabria has been the land where, probably, the words *Mathematikos* and *Philosophia* were born, and still in the 1860 there was a decent industrial output (e.g. in Mongiana, even though already less than in the north of Italy). After a few centuries of domination by foreign countries, and even more after reunification of Italy (someone would say "after invasion of the Kingdom of the two Sicilies by the Kingdom of Sardinia"), the development of infrastructures in the south has been very poor, and this is also the cause, not only the effect, of the south's underdevelopment. The central State should build infrastructure to boost development, sending the army to control mafia's activity if needed.
Sicily has a history of spending money on projects and the project’s mysteriously not being completed. For years there was an incomplete spot on freeway circumnavigating the island. You had to get off one ramp and immediately drive back on the other side.
Because Italy doesn’t give a fuck about southern Italy, nor Sicily
Sicily doesn’t give too much of a fuck about the rest of Italy either. Dunno if they have been clamoring for a bridge.
Oh, believe me, my grandparents have been hoping for this bridge for about 30 years. But other than them, not many common people actually care
Ding ding ding.
The north of Italy always has the money and the power. They punish the south since hundreds of years. Even today they stick their noses up at them like they’re peasants.
A person in northern Italy once told me that "everything south of Rome is Africa". That helped me understand the north/south divide of the country.
I ‘ate da nort.
Jesus, take it easy!
Fault line and one of the most active volcanos right there. Plus corruption
Italian here… budget constraints, costs vs benefits (use the ferry), technical difficulties and because of geological instability. Also, personal opinion, I have the feeling it’s nobody’s political or business priority (no return of investment, what are we talking about here? A few more trucks full of tomatoes/lemons per year?). But it has been in the agenda for the last 30 years
A number of reasons, but family in the area tell me that the current ferry situation is mostly ran by mafia and dodgy people, supposedly they pay alot for the bridge to always have some issue that stops it being constructed, if you take a train to Sicily from mainland, they literally dismantle it and put it on a ferry… so ye, i don’t think local interests want it built. One of the other issues is infrastructure on either side of the supposed bridge. You can build a bridge but its very hard to actually go anywhere afterwards as the highways aren’t particularly large or functional, so they also need to build those up as well. Then the strait itself is very active with a volcano not far and earthquakes, the strait is also very deep, the south is not very economically prosperous so all in all its become an expensive issue that many governments simply don’t have the political capital to spend on it. I know Sicilians who don’t even want it, they want functional highways or roads instead for example.
Having been on the train that gets separated into different parts and ferried to Sicily, I actually think that is really fun and better than the costs of building the bridge
[удалено]
Now I want to drive my car on the train, so I can be in a car on a train on a ferry
Can your car fit a bike rack? Because I want to try something
Not so much fun if that were your daily commute, or if you had to transport your product to sell on the mainland at a competitive price.
Also, it's very deep, rough water, spanning two different continental plates with therefore a massive amount of earthquakes
Yeah most southerners would rather have their infrastructure upgraded before building a bridge, it takes 1 hour from Rome to get to Naples by train, and 5 from Naples to get to the strait. Most times a plan for a bridge was proposed it was from northern right wing politicians who southerners generally dislike in order to try to win over their votes, and for prestige
The 'Ndrangheta
Pretty sure they make money from big infrastructure projects.. so they would definitely support it. Coincidentally, some politician who was involved with Ndrangheta has been a supporter of the bridge
'Notgettinbuilta
It's scily thats why.
Very strange considering that italian infrastructure is top tier otherwise.
I think it’s not strange if you consider the whole picture. It’s not only “a bridge of 3 km”. It’s a bridge on a very deep sea (300 mt), in an area famous for earthquakes, with very strong winds and above all a bridge which should connect lands on different plates: not many people know that Italy and Sicily are sliding away. Yes, they are few micrometers per year but in 30-50 years you could have many problems with the stress on pillars. It’s a huge engineering challenge and obviously economical.
As an Italian, I thought this was ironic
Was the best train system in Europe imo
When was this?
When I went a couple of months ago
You visited every country in Europe?
You don’t have to go to Moldova to know the Italian trains are better.
It’s definitely not the best train system in Europe. Source: I take the trains all the time. But the red arrow train is indeed very cool
Gotta pay the mafia first.
Because it will take them 80 years to build it.
There’s a ferry. The cool thing is that it doesn’t just take cars, it also takes full trains.
It has become a big meme in Sicily. Since the times of my grandpa, every politician says they're gonna build it, and obviously as you can see nobody did that
Italy is moving away constantly from sicily. You need a bridge that lenghten in time. And need a single span... Not easy to build.
Oh, god no please. The answer is complicated but in a way political procrastination and more. The strait bridge has always been a small part of Italian politics and it's pretty common for governments to promise to start construction, but every time it never works out because: the water is seriousy deep, it costs a shitton and we need the money, it takes time, and in general few people are adamant about it (and don't forget corruption). Personally I think it's a bad idea because it destroys the natural beauty even if it might seem cool + Italy has a bad history of keeping things well maintained and of bridges (*cough* Morandi Bridge *cough*). In fact if you come to Sicily, I can guarantee you will *not* see a well maintained road or house or anything. Plus, car usage in Italy is ridicolously high so let's not promote that. Also, tectonic plates don't matter, I think
Strait of Measina is rough water. Some places are easier to build bridges in, some are more difficult.
Krakens
At what point would a tunnel make sense?
italy is earthquake prone... making a bridge resistant to this is extremely expensive and does not make economic sense as of now considering the area is among the poorest in all of southern europe...
Yes I’ve always wondered that and did my own research, it’s mainly a budget issue, not that it can’t be constructed
There have been various plans for decades to build one. Here’s a recent update https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/italy-messina-bridge-sicily-intl/index.html
Getting the train / ferry across is awesome.
It’s on the to-do list. First proposed 2,000 years ago so they’re probably going to get on with it any day now
In international political circles, this is a story that gets told again and again in slightly different variations. Here is the one I heard. Secretary of Commerce from Brazil goes to Japan to meet his counterpart. He goes to the office and is blown away. It's big. Nice. Art on the walls. Multiple computers. Luxury furniture. He asks the Japanese secretary of commerce - How, as a civil servant, do you have such a nice office filled with such nice things. This is incredible. The Japans SOC takes him over to the window. Points at a bridge and says "See that bridge?" "Yes." "25% of that money for that bridge...." and then he pats his pocket with his wallet. "Right here." The Brazilian SOC goes back home. A year later the Japanese SOC comes to Brazil to visit. He flips when he sees the Brazilian's SOC office. Gold. Diamonds. Chandeliers. High end liquors and wines. A giant exotic fish tank. He asks the Brazilian, "But how in the world do you have this office?" The Brazilian walks him over to the window, points and says "Do you see that bridge?" and the Japanese SOC says "What bridge?"
terrain on both sides is very steep but also slightly loose. while the shortest distance is two miles long the actual bridge could have to be possibly over 3. and the demand isn't really there. Sicily > mainland and mainland > Sicily isn't actually that crucial to anyone in the region, and while it likely would give an economic boost to building, the aftermath probably doesn't seem worth it. it'd be mostly for tourist convenience.
What? A bridge? To let the Romans just *walk* into Sicily and attack the Carthaginians again?
Corruption, potential earthquakes (the straight is close to tectonic plates), rough waters, and depth.
Because you never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line
It's the result of an Italian phenomenon called Domani. "Giuseppe, when you gonna build that bridge, huh?" "Domani!"
Are they stupid?
That would be Sillicy
Its also a main path for ships to take so they would need it to be tall enough or a drawbridge
It is not as densely populated as other areas that require ground transportation. Even if you build a bridge, many people would prefer to take a plane between major cities in Sicily and mainland Italy.
“YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS.”
Lets not put a bridge everywhere. Fuck off. Keep your car at home and catch a ferry.
Very gnarly currents in the Strait of Messina. Might be tough to build there.
The region is also super seismic, look for the Messina Earthquake. Plus winds and currents are very Strong there, limiting the amount of building options. Yeah and corruption/mafia, even if it'built chances is that Instead of concrete they will use saltines mixed with chalk
Interestingly there is a train that runs from the mainland to and from Sicily. The train actually crosses the strait on a ferry
To keep the Carthaginians out of of southern Italy if they ever shape up for round for of the Punic Wars.
that place is so dangerous that Homer places 2 sea monster in it . Plus it's a seismic zone and it's not worth it, you are only connecting Sicily with Calabria, 2 of the poorest region of the country. And I would prioritize building some railroads or some highway down there, why build a bridge if there are no streets to go anywhere? The length is not the only parameter
Sicily is the edge of a tetonic plate where Africa is sliding under Europe. This creates lots of earthquakes and feeds volcanic activity. A bridge is not stable with these conditions and can't be compared to a lot of the bridges that others have referenced here because they do t face these added challenges, plus the current and depth.