Having watched Italian engineering projects firsthand, I would like to see them move forward with this, however rationally unjustifiable it might be, solely for the entertainment value of watching them approve the project with a ten year timeline, followed by nine and a half years arguing the details, and then building the whole thing in a six-month tornado of activity.
Scylla and Charybdis, in Greek mythology, two immortal and irresistible monsters who beset the narrow waters traversed by the hero Odysseus in his wanderings described in Homer’s Odyssey, Book XII. They were later localized in the Strait of Messina. - SOURCE
Very good! Talking about mythology I should have thought of that, darn it!
Oh! And finally someone else mentions Scylla and Charybdis. About time too, after 42 posts!
I am amazed it didn’t happen sooner too.
And of course those are not real but the ancients conjured them because they noted how dangerous those waters were compared to, basically, anywhere else. That suggests building a bridge there is not a simple thing even if it seems an obvious location for one.
I think the engineering is less challenging if they drop the idea of one long suspension bridge but instead add piers in the strait.
Though upthread someone says the strait is 250 meters deep. Is that too deep to anchor a pier?
If you take into account the strong currents that build up there (look at the map: the currents funnel from the north and the south, whichever way the wind blows) and the propensity for the ground to shake, it may not be too deep, but I reiterate my advice: Don’t do it.
I think the engineering ability exists to make such a bridge. The issue is cost. Would it be worth building? It’d be a very expensive project and, as much as I love bridges, this is probably a bridge too far.
Yeah, in a similar vein people are fascinated by the idea of bridging the Bering Strait– except it would be a bridge linking two barren wildernesses thousands of miles away from anywhere worth going to or hauling freight between.
Incidentally, the Wikipedia article on the proposed Strait of Messina Bridge includes a link to another proposed project; the Strait of Sicily Tunnel, which would link Sicily and Tunisia. There is also talk of a bridge or tunnel at the Strait of Gibraltar.
And I get that this proposed bridge may not be a good idea. But it also bothers me that the United States doesn’t seem to build things like it any longer. In the earlier part of the twentieth century, things like the Golden Gate Bridge or the George Washington Bridge were constructed. There seems to be less of that lately, except for replacement bridges like the one that replaced the Tappan Zee Bridge.
This isn’t the thread about pretentious rock lyrics!
Our analogue in the States would be a bridge across Puget Sound. Impractible for basically the same reasons: in an earthquake prone zone, all possible locations a bit too wide and deep to be workable, traffic between the two sides may prove to be underwhelming and not worth the expense.
I can’t decide if I should applaud or boo this. 
22 posts were split to a new topic: Big infrastructure projects (spin off from Sicilian bridge thread)
The Mafia has some “traditional connections” to various longshoremen’s unions - having a major Sicilian port of their very own might seem attractive…perhaps they could be encouraged to fund the project, rather than milk it.
I see the thread you are coming from. I love those coincidences. You win by 24 hours!
Good news! There’s very little cement involved in submarine construction.
Then what are the screen doors attached to?
The lanes on the older span are rather narrow. I’ve driven it at 5AM in a pouring rain and it can be scary.
Not to mention tolls paid by vehicles driving over it.
We’ve driven over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel numerous times. 17 miles, approximately. Most of it is more “causeway” height (30sh feet above the water). I don’t know if that would be feasible on a Sicily-to-mainland bridge. Also, the CBBT has, well, tunnel sections as otherwise it would completely block off shipping traffic to the port in Baltimore. No clue whether that would be feasible or desirable for the proposed bridge.
I think all in all, it would depend on what kind of traffic volume they think would take advantage of such a bridge, to decide whether it’s worth it.
250m is far too deep for a causeway. It’s suspension with the two towers on dry land / just barely into the water or nothing.
The photo in post 38 shows two red & white towers that used to support an overhead high tension power line. Which line is now replaced by something underground with greater capacity, but the towers still stand as a monument. That’s about where the suspension bridge towers would be, but they’d be half again to double as tall and vastly thicker & stouter.