Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Israel Army Proposes to Create Enclaves<br/>
Date: Feb 16, 2004 @ 06:03<br/>
Author: Lowell G. McManus (&quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="13207.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="13210.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic13165.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="13207.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="13209.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-2219541">Your description of the Solidarity Bridge at Colombia is correct.<br/>
<br/>
Almost all highway bridges on the Rio Grande lack superstructures.  Most of<br/>
those that have CAPUFE (the Mexican federal toll road authority) as the owner of<br/>
their Mexican segments have tall inward curving chain-link barriers on the sides<br/>
to prevent anyone from jumping off.  These end abruptly at the boundary<br/>
monument.<br/>
<br/>
There is web-cam coverage of all four Laredo/Nuevo Laredo bridges at<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.bravo.net/eye.asp">http://www.bravo.net/eye.asp</a> .  It works best during daylight, of course.<br/>
<br/>
Lowell G. McManus<br/>
Leesville, Louisiana, USA<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> ----- Original Message ----- <br/>
From: &quot;m06079&quot; &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:barbaria_longa@...">barbaria_longa@...</a>&gt;<br/>
To: &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>&gt;<br/>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 10:15 PM<br/>
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Israel Army Proposes to Create Enclaves<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
&gt; right<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; the interface between the bridge surface & the airspace above it<br/>
&gt; is actually left indefinite by the treaty<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; nor<br/>
&gt; as you say<br/>
&gt; is there evidently any practical need to improve upon the text<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; so the spandex is just one of several possible rationalizations<br/>
&gt; & not at all necessary<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; another rationalization might be according to the supposed<br/>
&gt; shape of the traffic corridor itself<br/>
&gt; say as defined by the normal height of the tallest vehicles<br/>
&gt; or in other words the shape of the corridor if the bridge had been<br/>
&gt; a tunnel<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; a third rationalization might be defined by the full polyhedral<br/>
&gt; ambit of the bridge structure itself<br/>
&gt; say<br/>
&gt; by projecting its shape to its full height<br/>
&gt; along its full length & width<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; there is at least one interesting new bridge tho<br/>
&gt; namely the one at colombia just above laredo<br/>
&gt; & roughly midway between nutatx & conutx<br/>
&gt; which is just a grade level viaduct between the 2 cut banks<br/>
&gt; with sidewalks beside the roadway & 3foot railings<br/>
&gt; but no other superstructure whatsoever<br/>
&gt; as i recall<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; so the overall height of the bridge structure is actually lower than<br/>
&gt; the height of practically all the traffic on it<br/>
&gt; hahaha<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; & this seems to argue against the bridge ambit<br/>
&gt; & in favor of the corridor or spandex shape<br/>
&gt; or some other rationalization as yet unimagined<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; but there is no definite or necessary way to look at this<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; if anything i think the same sort of horizontal lurch that must<br/>
&gt; occur just beneath or directly upon the bridge surface should<br/>
&gt; also be expected to occur in retrocessional somewhere above<br/>
&gt; the bridge surface<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; but this is not actually defined </span></blockquote></div>