The nearly 1,200-metre bridge is said to be the longest bridge in the world that will exclusively serve pedestrians, cyclists and trams.

  • Lehmuusa@nord.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    4 days ago

    The carbrains are mad indeed. They are super annoyed that “we built a bridge for one billion euros and then blocked cars from it for no reason!”

    Of course the bridge cost a bit over 300 millions. But, there was a larger project where they included everything they needed to build in the vicinity of the bridge project, so that they wouldn’t need to dig the ground open, fill it, dig it open again, etc. And everything included, the project did indeed cost a bit over one billion. That number includes the four-lane Hakaniemi bridge, built mainly for cars and without any public transportation routes. And it includes the groundwork for many new houses. And some 10 km of new tram line. And a tram depot. And a block of flats that will be built right overneath the tram depot. Of course, when the flats will be sold, much of the costs of that house will be paid back to the city. And then there are two further tram bridges.

    There is no space for more cars in the street network on the cape where the city centre of Helsinki is located, so they would have needed to spend at least 500 million extra to accommodate for the cars that would come from that bridge. Plus, the bridge itself would have had to be built three times as wide as it was built now, which would have cost some hundreds of millions as well. For anybody not going for the centre, there is anyway a better route through another bridge on the northern end of the Laajasalo island. So, not spending some 700 million extra, bringing the total cost of the project from a bit over one billion to a bit under 2 billion, meant that money was wasted.

    I’ve been wondering, why do they not complain that no cars are allowed in the metro tunnels? Why dig tunnels and then prohibit driving cars in the perfectly good tunnels??

    • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Sorry to not address the bulk of your comment, but overneath is a fascinating word, for someone interested in languages and the process of foreign language learning specifically. It’s entirely understandable, but not a real word as far as I can tell. I’m interested in being corrected here, for sure. Seems theres a company by that name but thats all I was able to find.

      Normally in this context you’d see overtop, overhanging, covering, above, over, something like that, but overneath makes total sense too, due to underneath and beneath being words with the widespread definition of under.

      I did find that ‘neath’ is a shortening of beneath which means under, and under obviously means under, so underneath is technically redundant and means “under under”. And overneath would actually mean over under, which is itself kinda fun, because of how understandable it was in context. :D