Why There is No Bridge Between Europe and Africa
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 04. 2023
- Have you ever wondered why there is no bridge between Europe and Africa? This video documentary examines the map of both continents, revealing the geography and distance that remains a barrier to a bridge joining the two landmasses. From the depths of the Mediterranean Sea to the tiny strait of Gibraltar, this informative video unpacks how geography has played a major role in isolating Europe and Africa. This will help you understand why there is no bridge between these two large continents and if there is any potential to ever build one (or a tunnel)
CORRECTION:
6:33 The symbol on the screen should show less than 10 miles.
I think we all know why there's no permanent bridge between Europe and Africa.
We don’t want it …we have all what need in Africa 😇
@@imanekeraoui5341 I'm sure you may have all that you need, and I'm very happy that you have but why are so many other Africans other than yourself making the perilous crossing into Europe. Why are millions of Africans entering Europe to make asylum claims if you have all that you need?
@@imanekeraoui5341yeah, you guys are the ones that don't want it 😂😂😂
Different reason than why South and Mid America never will because of indigenous tribes and thick fully intact ancient Jungle ecology.
_Bridge back to mother Africa, hmm?_
Could the Muslim -Moops- , Moors retake Catholic Espaine?
@@imanekeraoui5341, see. That's what I also Thunk it so.
For secutity reasons, no bridge.
immigration reasons more I think
If they have a bridge the army would be charge violating human rights.
That bridge will be overrun
Absolutely! Just remember how Africa was invaded, colonized, and looted by Europeans without a bridge to facilitate their crimes. Imagine what would happen if there was one!
@@Unapologetically_human8349 I think you're misinterpreting this post badly. He's referring to security reasons in the sense that Africans having an easier access point into Europe would be a bad/harmful situation towards Europe.
What are the security reasons please?
Hiya I live in Gibraltar…. There is a lot more behind the reasons why people in Gibraltar do not want to be Spanish. Our first language is English, we only learn Spanish for logistics, being basically 3km long and stick to Spain.
In 1969, General Franco closed the land border between Gibraltar and Spain, separating families and locking in those who chose to stay on the rock.
He did not even allow the passage of medical supplies, food or any sort of tele communication.
He was hoping to starve the people out, believing they would come begging to be Spanish in order to be set free.
Instead something incredible happened, the people came together and found ways to push through the adversity they were facing.
The border was shut for 13 years!! Only opening to pedestrians in 1982. Seeing that this is only 41 years ago many of us who lived this are still alive.
We remember how the Spanish government tried to starve us, why would you want to join them?
We have been British for over 300 years and although illogical to many we wish to continue doing so. Last referendum a resounding 96% of the voters chose to remain British.
No country would want to join a nation that goes out of their way to make regular peoples lives difficult. Nowadays we have to stand in queues for hours to get into Spain.
Any political tension kicks off and we are directly bullied at the border being reminded that they have the power to bring our right to free movement to a grinding halt.
I could go on forever
This one addresses the real issues.
let's see if you understand some spanish: JODETE.
Y lo hariamos una vez mas si hace falta 😘
@@ColoringAHouse British Gibraltar
@@busoko_Ismail2468 Gibraltar volvera a ser Español, echaremos a todos los colonos de la zona, tiempo al tiempo.
You are missing one crucial point. Most European countries have no interests in facilitating movement to and from Africa. Especially not when it comes to people. The current migrant crisis - which a very sensitive political issue - mainly concerns migrants from Africa illegally crossing the Mediterranean sea. The number of people detained in refugee camps awaiting processing is staggering. The situation is unsustainable from a humanitarian as well as a political perspective. Adding a fixed access point would require extensive measures to prevent movement of people, turning the bridge into a fortress, probably making border checks and crossings so complicated and time consuming that it wouldn't be financially or practically viable.
In short. Fix your shit at home logically, logistically, and humanitarianly speaking.
It's not fair for Europe or anyones home to suddenly get an influx of outsiders. Who let's be frank don't always hold humane views about key things. Like womens rights, religious freedoms, and also various other negative nitpicks you could use. However beyond that the infrastructure just isn't there either.
You have any city, and especially a border city garner a massive influx of peoples who due to terrible circumstances have nothing. It strains everything in horrible ways.
The fact of the matter is the world sucks, we have limited resources, and also logically why should X plave bend over backwards to accommodate people from X other place simply because the locals over there are fucking everything up?
It quite literally isn't fair on either side when you think about it. So it's a compromise to do nothing, or to simply keep movement stagnant.
Sometimes we forget that not just European nations but the West in general have affected Africa as a continent. Stagnated development and political order not just by colonizing and plandering their natural resources but ensuring government instability. Putting aside seemingly backward ideologies/culture that the African tribes might have had/still have, the West simply does not want a sleeping giant to wake up because it would cut off their raw mineral supplies and influx of skilled labour that have to leave their homes and poor economies with lack of opportunities to go work abroad. This video addresses all geographical constraints and the narrator took his time to explain this. However, if we actually go into the real crux of the matter we open a can of worms that not only divides opinions bitterly but that people aren't willing to address as well.
@@wana.me003 Africa had a 60k year evolutionary head start on Europe, if it was to ever become a power house, it surely would've long before we ''colonizing and plandering'' Europeans showed up there
Sub Saharan Africa did have a couple of extremely wealthy dynasties,however these civilisations collapsed from internal conflict LONG before Europeans colonised Africa.They had their golden age when Europe had it's dark age
@@anneloving8405Europe's "dark age" still saw 10x more development than most of Africa at the time.
Sailed through there many times. It's mind blowing to see two continents at once.
Gibraltar rock is cool too.
Egypt be like: 👁👁
Russia be like: 👁👁
Turkey be like: 👁👁
Also Russia be like: 👁👁
I've never been to these parts of Morocco or Spain. Is there any noticeable difference in the landscapes?
You can pretty much see 3 countries at once, Spain, Morocco and UK
Pl
@@LaGomitaTV How the fuck do you see UK from there?
In short: the depth at the narrowest point is 1 km and sea currents. Today, the Padma Bridge in Bangladesh has the deepest underwater supports - 122 meters. Already now it is considered a very complex and ambitious project, so it is not necessary to talk about the possibility of building a bridge in the open sea at a depth of 300 (then the bridge would be 10 km longer), let alone 900 meters.
That was indeed what I was wondering during the whole video. He did not speak of the height of the pillars that would be needed to support such a bridge.
As a Buddhist, bring on the Padma Bridge.
Yeah this narrator completely disregarded one of the biggest challenges. The foundation of the bridge.
Never even watched the rest of the presentation, as soon as he mentioned the depth I was done.
I was too pretty much. Even if all the other reasons didn't exist, that alone would prevent it's construction. @@robertlivingston1634
It's also important to note that transform faults cause locations to move to the sides - that means that because the fault runs across where the bridge is, the sides of the bridge would be shifted to opposing sides.
Your comment out of hundred 💯 nailed it Morocco 🇲🇦 2300 💯 Death Toll and 13 💯 injuries
In areas affected by transform faults, a floating bridge with a raised middle part is a great option. This design can flex and adapt to the ground movements in these regions. It also allows cargo ships to pass underneath without needing a lot of vertical space. Tunnels are another choice, and they provide stability, especially when bridges moving around could be a problem.
And this would make a tunnel like between San Francisco and Oakland unwise as well.
There's a few issues, normally, you'd want to build a floating bridge if you've got a situation like that as they can be built to pivot and slip if you need to. But, you've got an issue there as it is part of the ocean, which isn't fatal, but it also has to allow for ships to enter and exit the Mediterranean which is also a bit of an issue. You'd need a tall section that's large enough and wide enough to allow ships to enter and exit the sea and then drop down far enough for a floating bridge that would be rising and falling with the tides.
I'm sure it could be done, but, it would also be a pretty busy bridge due to the amount of traffic that likely would want to bypass the step of loading ships and ferries.
Because 1.4 billion people would try to get into Europe
At 1:00: “The potential economic impact is massive.”
At 5:50: “There isn’t a huge economic benefit.”
Because of racist
@@jkashtv8551 Perhaps because Morocco is not well connected to most of Africa so having a bridge/tunnel is of limited commercial benefit.
😂😂😂😂
@@jkashtv8551 Because Morocco has little to nothing of value.
@JKASHTV85 More of races. There's a difference.
I don't think they want the 2 continents connected :D :D
Why would they want to be connected?
@@kennethdodd-ll9qo they would have to put passport checkpoints on both ends...the ferry ride for me was just fine
why would any sane person want to? They have a big enough issue with illegal migration with a bridge they would be overrun.
To protect Europe and its people.
having traveled multiple times between both countries by ferry I have wondered why no bridge- assumed it was a height thing with ships. This was very interesting
I have sailed through the Straits of Gibraltar many times. The seas are no joke. I have encountered 70 foot seas one year. There's no way you could build a seaworthy bridge in those conditions
70ft ya kidding me
Untill there's economic need to build one 😅
I won't say they "can't". But I agree there is no desire right now to spend the money needed to engineer something to withstand that kind of weather.
@@arubuolaebenezer9986 There will be no economic reasons to build engineer, build, and maintain such a bridge. It would be infinitely cheaper to just sail or fly cargo across the 8-mile strait.
@@0warami_7oo I could never kid about that. The ship's anchor was banging against the side of the ship. It sounded like you were inside of a big ass steel grandfather clock.
There is an active and very dangerous tectonic transform fault related to a nearby forming subduction zone, running through the strait which has caused numerous serious earthquakes and would tend to slowly tear apart any bridge, due to the opposing motion of the sea bed on either side of the fault.
@@Flawed-Awed-Gawed Land go move away from each other than bridge go
s t r e t c h
@@randomnobody8713 unga boonga
Yeah bc it God telling you Europe colonizing is over
@@kauciontheboss Maybe I'd care about your opinion if you learned how to use proper grammar? Probably not, but it's certainly worth checking no?
@@kauciontheboss No it isn't. For several reasons.
Thank you. Your video was very informative.
Fascinating geography and history session.
I was stationed in Spain in the 1970s. The bridge from Spain to the Rock (Gibraltar) was closed and had been for years. Spain and England were in a spat with each other. So instead of a 3 min ride across the bridge, we had to take a ferry from Spain to the rock added 3 hours to our trip.
This is why they'll never have the bridge here.
also , there is huge problem with african luck seekers all trying to get into europe..
most countries already feel flooded right now, as smartphones have made it a lot feasible to try crossing the Sahara , with plenty do , even now when that means afterwords risking their lives in way small boats to get across the Mediterranean..
how much worse would the influx get if they have the prospect of a fixed bridge they can dream of to balance of to try to get across?
and africa is the only continent that still has way to rapid population growth, with way to few atractive option for their yougth.. and the comptetation alternative for going into europe is...
the middle east... the place with most tensions, and in with during the Syria refugee crisis Soedi arabia hasn't been preperred to take in a single refugee ... putting all the pressure on Libanon, Trukey and europe ... millions there choose to risk it all and walk 2000 miles on foot to get into a european country to get assylum in ...
politically the sad truth it thing would get much simpler is africa was a bit further away, not closer.. at least untill it's population growth flats out,
in my country 1 in 4 todlers doesn't speak the countries language at home AT ALL ... the big lack of knowlegde of language drawn down our education level enormously, as teachers have to focus more and more an helping that language retard , witch mean lowering the bar constantly , and europe need good education, it only lives off innovation to stay wealthy.. the max the education system can take has been reaches in plenty of cities really putting down education levels.. so we are really at the tolerance level of how many outsiders we can welcome in our welfare systems...
that's why policy becomes a bit two ways.. europe does not want to lose it's humanistic values and provide sanctum for asylum seekers, but at same time europe has become a WAY to attractive destination.. with the continent of with most asylum seekers come expecting to DOUBLE in population in the next 50 yrs..
this is about the worst time possible to try to get any political support for the construction of such a bridge !!
a bridge is also less easy to close off then the eurotunnel, and the eurotunnel has to put much effort in combating stowaways , that HAVE already reached western Europe but are set on getting into the UK ...
They were looking into a tunnel from Tarifa about 20 years ago but nothing came of it
10 not 20
@@JeroenJA Yikes dude
@Lauren T the truth is america and Australië have it real easy not being land connected to the only continent that is expected to double in population in the next 30 yrs..
You miss one thing. We have no problems building long bridges on land that can span more than 10 miles because we can just put columns in between almost anywhere we want. On the sea its a different story., especially where there are ships moving under the bridges and this ships are gigantic very wide. It means you need to make the bridge long in between those columns for an easy an pass for the ships to go under.
A lot of accident already happened where in the ship bump on one of the columns of the bridge and the bridge collapses.
We have build a bridge 13 miles long across sea in Denmark.
This is why Brian has a bridge that's able to hijrolikly bend in the middle section only, and with this it would seem building the bridge would be possible but there's a few problems even if we built the bridge so it's high enough abouth sea level, and that the middle section of the bridge hijrolikly bends the same way that the one in Britain then add the amount of bouts that pass through the area between Point Marroqui, and Point Cires into the equation this would conservative the amount of bouts that are forced to go through the middle section of the bridge and considering that you're going to need to get the cars to stop before they get on the part of the bridge that hijrolikly bends then when the people on bouts are happy everyone in their cars on the bridge as mad and vise versa causing internal trade exspesaly with all countrys that are stuck on opusut sides of the black sea that rely on bout travel for almost all internal trade and even turkey will have trouble so until turkey, and other countries that most of the time depend on bout travel for international market exchange 💱 💱, businesses, and trade become at least 90% bout travel independent, and Britain relocates the location of their overseas navy base that's within the fusinity of the castle of tarifa that's close to Point Marroqui if those two requirements don't happen then Spane, Marko, and every country that relys on bout travel for international travel and trade more than by any other means of transportation besides by plain will refuse to help build the bridge, or even try to build the bridge themselves. 😅😅😅😅😅😅
Confederation bridge joining PEI to mainland Soviet Canuckistan is 12km(?) long over the open ocean
The submerged floating tunnel concept from the 1930s that was mentioned is probably the best. It can deal with the strait's depth, the instability of its bottom, and the tectonic activity. One of about the same length has been operating in a significant earthquake zone since the 1970s: the BART tube across San Francisco Bay. One of its advantages is that it doesn't require tunneling the land connections as deep or as far from the water.
The biggest threats for an SFT would probably be terrorism causing blockage of the straight (because if the cables holding the tunnel down were severed by explosives, for example, the whole tube would float to the surface) and collision with the many submarines that transit the straight. Whales would presumably "see" it with their sonar and avoid it. Other than a blue or gray whale, maybe, even if they hit it at full speed it would probably be fine for the tunnel - certainly not for the whale. I don't know whether blue or gray whales even enter the Med.
The real challenges are political and economic, not technical. It should be a long-term economic boon for North Africa (and eventually the rest of it), though, allowing cheaper manufacturing of goods efficiently exportable to Europe by rail. No need to build a big expressway network across the region. Attaching tidal power generators along the length of the tunnel would be a good source of ongoing revenue to subsidize the project.
I was here to post this very point but one important correction: the BART tunnel is NOT a floating tunnel. It's a standard immersed tunnel design where the tunnel is sunk and laid on the sea/bay floor then connected together.
It's just laid on relatively non-rigid ground and designed to flex (and the trains get a warning signal to stop to avoid derailment)...tho the prospect of having to hike back to land through a dark tube after an earthquake always scared me while riding it.
See the Wikipedia entry on it for reference (don't dare link lest I be tagged as spam).
Also, I'm not that convinced it would have that much economic impact...social impact sure.. but Europe has a number of navigable rivers so you can ship things pretty far into the interior without needing a train and it's cheaper.
The social impact is the bigger one.
Washington state has lost 2 of the 3 floating bridges to sinking over the decades. One of them is over saltwater, but the currents aren't as significant and it didn't need to be engineered to handle large container ships passing by either.
It's probably the most immediatly possible choice, but the expense would make it completely unaffordable for the amount of capacity that it would have. It could be used, but most cargo would still have to go over air or sea. Most likely, a railroad bridge would be the only thing that could carry enough to make it worthwhile. And even that is probably not viable.
Fantastic! My per-minute learning ratio was off the charts!
Very underrated channel. This video was far more dense and informative then I was expecting. This is academic level knowledge and information. Well done.
Agree 100%
But there are some big mistakes in there. He says 100.000 Ships go through the Channel each year but over 300 oil tankers per Day. That makes no sence. And the evergreen ships right now are over 60m high already (not counting below sea level). And there are a lot more.
Im sure Europe is thrilled that theres no bridge there 😅
lmao. I was thinking the same exact thing. If there was a bridge, I have no doubt that it would be very similar to how the US-Mexico border crossings are configured (where it's much more tightly controlled, when traveling from South to North, as opposed to the opposite direction).
How selfish of them 😓
when you say Europe you mean Italy, German, and Netherlands right?
The distance from the mainland of Spain and the Spanish city of Ceuta bordering Morocco is 11 miles away. If a tunnel were to be constructed by Spain, that would be the best option in terms of security and control, as Spain would have control of both sides of the tunnel.
Thanks for sharing this very useful information 🙏
You just answered your question in the first couple of minutes. Depth of the Straights! You would have to build a bridge tall enough for the largest ships today and tomorrow to pass through. A floating bridge won't work and a tunnel under the straights would be almost impossible with today's technology.
A really information packed analysis going in depth into the question. Well done...I found it really informative.
it's sad how much foreshadowing this video had to what's going on in morocco right now :( never if but when... i pray for them and hope they are safe. Thank you for the informative video!
The Richter scale is no longer used, and hasn't been for around 50 years. When you see magnitude in regards to earthquakes it is in the MMS (Moment Magnitude Scale) unless stated otherwise.
mmh, no, in most countries it is the Richter scale actually
mmh, no, in most countries it is the Richter scale actually
I fully admit that my knowledge is very United States centric so will only speak for here. With that said the US uses the MMS. Above is a link to the USGS as a source for my claim.
Excellent video. I learned some cool stuff. And I have to admit, I had wondered about this, casually, for years. Now I know.
Congratulations! A very good and competent presentation!
This is a super good video !
Great informative video
Now I understand the reasons. Crossed the Straits just last year with a speed ferry and wonder about this bridge link feasibility. I love the Atlantic ocean and Mediterranean sea.
A bridge is unneeded if a tunnel can be built. A tunnel could also hold communications cables and high-voltage electrical cables. Developers could then put in large-scale renewables in North Africa that are currently hindered because of no good way to get the electricity generated over to Europe.
I don't think anyone would wanna pay for that
2 continental plates vying for supremacy. Only one can win while the tunnel loses.
Renewables require the destruction of ecosystems for the rare metals needed to make them, use nuclear instead.
A tunnel or a bridge both can be done yet haven't.
PS we can lay under water cables for power and communications so that isn't an issue.
There are communication cables between North America and Europe.
Tunnel would be more expensiv and is harder to build in terms of earthquake resitance. Dont get me wrong we have ways to make tunnels more resilient against earthquakes, but a tunnel would directly lay on the base (or in it depending on the kind of tunnel) of the Straight, earthquakes come from far beneath the upper layers of earth, but even that minor depth of 350m makes a huge difference in strength of the earthquake.
They could do a bridge/tunnel such as the ones that take various highways across the James and Elizabeth rivers and the Chesapeake Bay and the various bridge and tunnels that bridges that exist in the Washington, DC area mainly across the Potomac River between Arlington, VA and Washington, DC and across the Anacostia River between different sections of Washington, DC.
A lot more information in this video than expected!
Not all information in this video is correct. Gibraltar is NOT "part of the United Kingdom." Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory... (one of several.)
One of the biggest drawbacks to the bridge would be the problem of security as this would start to be a major crossing point for unauthorised immigrants , just like the Channle Tunnel . Also the connections to other points in Africa by any form of transport are few and much of Africa is politically unstable . Then there is the tecnical problem of vuilding a bridge across a major geological fault
Actualy the bigest problem in this world Are the English, They are still occupying Gibraltar, just like some other terroitory's around the world. There policies together with the French and the Belgium Destoryed Africa's Economics, And Fascists poltics would always hold this back with the argument you are making. But that isn't an argument, Europe dosn't have to protected against Africa, Africa Needs to be protected against European Fascists and Greedy company's, A bridge like this would be a step in the right Direction. And with good trade everybody can profit
The solution to that is easy, a mounted .50 cal machine gun and a vehicle sized X-RAY scanner
@@mwbgaming28 or maybe just stop invading and destabilising their countries
Yeah only problem is they really wouldn't be coming to England if the English stayed tf ovadere
Easy, just have an airport with England as its sole destination at the other end. And no one is allowed to leave unless they take the plane or go back.
For the legal travellers just check passports, visas and then let them go on with their travels.
A long time ago, there was no strait of Gibraltar. The two continents touched at that location and there was no mediterranean sea. You could simply walk across. The mediterranean sea exists just because that 8 mile opening came to be, not the other way around.
That's not entirely accurate. There was a MASSIVE sea where the Mediterranean Sea AND the Sahara Desert (whale bones found in the desert) is today. The opening, to the ocean was more likely at the other end (Red Sea).
@@michiganspencer6920that’s true. You can also find sea fossils even in hills and mountains relatively close to the coast so the sea level in the Mediterranean coast of Spain was much higher all over.
That's cool.
@@mendistudio Actually it's the other way around. Those hills and mountains used be much lower - even part of the sea floor. The mountains of Europe and North Africa were, for the most part, created by the collision between the continental plates of Africa and Europe. Those two plates are still crashing together and eventually the Mediterranean will be completely plowed under.
Re the tensions between Gibraltar and Spain, I'd like to add another one: Spain does not allow aircraft landing at and departing from Gibraltar Airport to fly over Spanish mainland. So if aircraft have to make a West-East approach, they have to make a very steep turn over the Bay of Gibraltar.
Sometimes it's better to have some sort of a barrier between neighbors
Lowkey racist comment
@@nyimeatedreamchildobari8599 Face it bro they are violent
@@nyimeatedreamchildobari8599I cant tell if you are joking or not.
If not, you're the joke here.
Look at Sweden.
With regards to the island concept in the middle of the Straits of Gibraltar, you haven’t taken into account the mega strong Levante Storms that we get here in the region, particularly in winter, trust me, I know so, I live here.
Exactly. An “island” imagines something dropped in a river or bay, when it’s really like trying to drop an island anywhere in the 1200’ deep Atlantic Ocean. Better luck swimming the Atlantic. Then, there’s the shipping hazard of dropping an island in the strait, also similar to hazard dropping an island middle Atlantic.
=( Found this video the day after Morocco's earthquake. Glad the tectonics were mentioned here.
Arthur C Clarke Invisioned the bridge only being built once carbon nanofilament technology has been developed. This was an aside note in his novel "Fountains of Paradise" where the Gibraltar Bridge is used as a proof of concept to encourage governments to fund building of a space elevator to geostationary orbit
It's because the economic crisis that we face here in north Africa is so dire that the population would instantly try to run across that bridge and risk getting riddled with bullets rather than living in the conditions our poor and lower middle class live in.
Well, that’s informative. Here in the US I didn’t think of that. Thx for the input.
@@christinesorensen8050 he is making it look worse then it is , Yes its not Europe but neither is it the middel east or the rest of Africa . Also these people in the undeveloped countries think Eu is heaven and we have flying cars here and shit . Same goes for the US they think everyone in the US is rich and has a good live . Alot of people in the countries in North africa have a decent live and tbh my whole take on this ( ive been there to those countries ) being poor in Marocco is better then being poor in the US or France or whatever .
@@mkbijnaam8713 well, lol, I can attest that being poor in the US is no picnic. It’s not that hard to end up homeless if you don’t know anyone who will help out when you need it. Same goes for needing food, medicine, education etc. yea there are some programs that help but there’s definitely no safety net for certain ppl. Homelessness is rampant.
where are you from?
@@mkbijnaam8713 the only people living good here are the elite, we can't transfer nor obtain money from abroad, we can't freelance (it's illegal) our passport is worthless and visa free travel is only allowed to countries no body can visit anyway cause the ticket prices are a year of salary, Europe's no heaven, but at least if you're smart and have skills there you can live a respectable life at worst, and make a shit ton of money at best.
Very very good video and it's important to know such things
The requirements of 100’ in height (without drawbridge or tunnel) is less than half of the actual need. Ships measuring some twenty stories above the water line transit the straights regularly.
Great job for the first video of this channel 🎉
Thank you!
1. Never build a bridge/tunnel over a faultline/subduction zone.
2. There has to be a profit.
3. There must be local infrastructure. If there is none, then building one will be part of the cost of the bridge.
Surely there are bridges across subduction zones in other parts of the world?
You could just make a floating bridge akin to Oil Rigs/Platforms. Its not what I would call reliable/safe, but... Its possible.
@seneca983 Well, I have looked a little, and could not find any. If you find one, then I would be interested to know about it.
@MrJinglejanglejingle Well, then that bridge would still have to open up to permit traffic into and out of the Strait. Meh. When people say bridge they mean a structure that is anchored to the ground or sea bottom, and that permits water traffic as well.
@@notsure1277 ...I'm sure when the layman or the fool thinks of a bridge, they think only of an anchored structure, but things have evolved.
And no, it really wouldn't need to open up anything. Most Oil Rigs/Platforms sit far above the waves. More than enough room for the majority, if not all, ships to pass beneath without fuss.
The 100 foot clearance over the water discussed here misses the military traffic. Radar masts and other vertical structures of warships frequently exceed 150 feet. these players will certainly weigh in on such a project.
Height Plus tides & other variables. Limiting ship design. Problems with materials: strength, etc... needing to be over built in a day when things are made "good enough".
There's some issues with the shipping numbers. You state over 300 tankers use the strait every day, which is over 109,000 a year. But that in total the strait gets around 100,000. So the number of cruise ships, navy vessels, fishing vessels, and non oil cargo ships is negative 9000?
Also the fact that that would only make crossing into Europe more easy and we'd now need to have border guards at the bridge 24/7
Exactly, There is no point to this bridge, no one in Europe would want this..
The depth of the water is the main reason why there is no bridge. In some spots, it goes down to 900 meters! No foundation will reach that deep.
Don't need it to go that deep. Just make it akin to Oil Platforms/Rigs. They float pretty easily.
I like the idea of that floating island towards the end of the video!
Yeah as you have pointed out indirectly a few times already by 7:05, countries are more connected economically, by sea rather than by bridge.
When you so sympathetically spoke about spain "colonising" Morocco you forgot to mention that Morocco colonised Spain for *800 years.*
and none of us faced ourselves Moors, Conquistadors or dying due to lack of penicillin invention. so... are we chill again? =]
@@cocoday6215 Both are colonisers so the same rhetoric should be used, he uses two very diffrent rhetorics. Cry ab it
@@salty_techAlthough every neighbour of Morocco have to face some kind of Moroccan made up issue with them.
400 bc moors invaded Spain Portugal and France and Moroccon arabs had white slaves for 700 years the irish have more spainish Dna than any other cultures updated technology DNA
THE NORTH OF SPAIN WERE MOROCCON SO IRISH DNA ALSO HAS SPANISH AND MOROCCON DNA
Well, a bridge would only make sense if it connected several large population/economical centers through complementary infrastructure (highways/rail). We simply don't see that, African population centers are south of the desert and European are in an axis from London to northern Italy.
For any distance over 400 miles, it is generally accepted that intermediate shipping is much more economical than truck freight. That's 200 miles on either side. The bridge would only make sense if vehicle, intermediate & passenger trains were included. But remember the cost of paint needed to put bull eyes on everything - even under water.
I was wondering why there wasn't a bridge in Gibraltar, good video.
The waters around Gibraltar are Spanish
just think how much security you would need
That's the real reason there's no physical connection other than water. Fear.
You need a force bigger than NATO.
Why don't you just leave it alone let them people stay over there at bring your ship by boat and leave it alone
Because after the Earthquake and the land gave way, Such an immense volume of water passed through there that it cut a channel from a quarter mile to a half mile deep.
Way too deep for any kind of bridge supports.
It's almost had to be where Altantis was.
Along a certain twelve mile stretch of coast that is no longer there anymore.
Which would mean it was now spread out in the Far Western Mediterranean under hundreds of feet of silt.
There were no humans millions of years ago when this happened lol.
@@feiryfella The fresh water clam shells they find across the Western Mediterranean aren't millions of years old.
They only live in shallow freshly supplied water.
The story of Atlantis and the Biblic great deluge are related to te Black Sea level increase.
The most important info that I didn’t hear is: what’s the current traffic volume between Spain and Morocco. Usually bridges are built to replace existing ferries and airplanes that can’t keep up with the demand. What’s the point of building a bridge that is barely used by anyone?
cool video. Keep it up.
Is there a reason why there should be a bridge???
Faster travel?
The only possible way to do it is with a floating bridge with a floating raised bridge to allow ship passage underneath. Would not obstruct water currents. Floating bridges have been successful in Hoodsport canal in Washington state.
..and trained whales to keep the floating bridge elements in position. (yes this is a joke!)
The separate shifting of tetonic plates are a problem.
It is neither the distance nor the deepth that makes connecting Europe and Africa difficult. The issue is that they are on diffent techtonic plates, constantly moving relative to each other.
And here we are on 9/9 and an earthquake has decimated parts of Morocco.
There is a combined crossing called the Chesapeake Bay Bridge & Tunnel.
After San Francisco's last biggish earthquake, I really wouldn't want to be on a bridge during an earthquake, but I just can't see how being in a tunnel in an earthquake would be survivable. When the tube cracks/splits/shifts water comes in & where would you go?
As expected didn't mention the real reason haha
probably out of ignorance, but any European knows the reason, we surely do not want any bridge here and if we could secure the border better it would certainly be an improvement.
Money. That's what it always comes down to. If there was a financial incentive to do it, there would be a bridge or tunnel. After all, the English Channel is 21 miles at its smallest point and they built a tunnel there years ago.
There are additional problems with the potential 8 mile bridge.
One, amongst others, are the separately shifting tetonic plates.
What about a causeway , ( a bridge which is level with the water ) with a draw bridge to allow boats through ?
See 8:14
How does one find an LA Times article from 1985 that is formatted for the internet? I'm impressed if they truly archived everything like that.
This was a truly amazing presentation! Thank you!
It’s factually incorrect it can’t be done.
The suez canal is on the eastern Mediterranean, not the western Mediterranean.
I was wondering when someone would spot the Obvious :)
Clearly, they were using an Australian map. /jk
Geopolitical challenges and the depth of the bridge are the challenges faces to build the bridge
The main problem is that the area is on very nasty fault line, also the regions ferry service is extensive and the people that use them are mostly localized commuters going to specific ports as opposed to folks going on long pleasure jaunts, so overall Spain, Morocco, and British Gibraltar mutually don't see the practicality of a bridge
I’m wondering if a combination bridge tunnel was ever considered. I live in VA and on the East Coast we have the 17 mile Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT) which connects VA Beach to the eastern shore of VA. It’s bridge - tunnel - bridge - tunnel - bridge. We also have other bridge tunnels in Hampton Roads: Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel and Monitor Merrimac Bridge Tunnel, which connect the ‘south side’ to the north side ‘peninsula’. They are much shorter.
The tunnel would be over a km down.
@@bbeen40 Tunnels don't have to be below the floor of the body of water they travel through. They can go through the water itself.
This is your first video? alright alright alright.. keep it up :D would have loved to see more funky bridge ideas but the island at the end made up for it 😂
They don't want to be linked.
I like Suvee's idea of the islands linking the bridges and the resort plans that would also generate energy. It makes sense to have the project help pay for itself.
The energy to power Morroco is huge. To have it basically generated for free is huge.
Morocco just had a 6.8-7.0 Earthquake further validation of the stability issue for a Bridge.
it would likely need to be more of a tunnel or bridge tunnel like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel
My thoughts exactly
economic impact for who exactly?
A bridge across would certainly relate to land highway situation...ultimately leading to cross country passing on both directions....we built a cross continental bridge just to b hindered by passing permits?
Seized through blood shed??? Isn’t that almost every inch of the world for all modern countries…
And for ancient countries also!
Before watching, I'm gonna guess the biggest obstacle would be motivation.
While it would certainly be a technical challenge, all technical challenges can be conquered if only there is sufficient motivation.
But what would a continental bridge achieve? The Mediterranean Sea is enclosed by lands, making it far gentler than the open oceans. This is what made it so popular in ancient times, and in modern times it's easier than ever.
And then there's what you are going to transport. If you are to transport bulk goods, you need a sturdy bridge all the way to support the train, and trains greatly prefer flat railway, but you need it tall enough for ships to pass under, requiring it either be convex and therefore not flat, or flat but greatly elevated.
Compare it to transporting bulk goods by boat, which is trivial in comparison.
And if you are to transport passengers, there are already plenty of ferries, and they have worked well for millennia.
The only thing you can transport better by bridge, is private transport, singular cars. But how many people would make regular commute between Europe and Africa? If you work in Africa, why not live in Africa? If you work in Europe, why not live in Europe?
Simply put, the existing transportation is already solid, even if the sheer technical challenges are overcome, there's very little to gain, thus giving inadequate motivation to overcome this technical challenge.
🌉⛔🚢 It's unfortunate to hear about the challenges you faced with the closed bridge in the past. Geopolitical tensions can certainly impact infrastructure projects like a bridge. It's important to consider the political, economic, and logistical factors involved in such ambitious undertakings. Curious to learn more about why there is currently no bridge between Europe and Africa in the video!
No one needs to make refugees and Islam spread faster in Europe.
One word… BLACK PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!
We dont need it, and Morocco shows is not a friend, blackmailing europe with immigration if europe doesnt pay them. Same than turkey
Millions of parasitical undesirables is why son.
@@petersneddon1579 you're right: that's exactly what Europeans are.
'...the territories were seized through bloodshed and colonized...' is not a 'weak argument' insofar as not one acre of fertile land on the planet hasn't been seized through bloodshed and colonized. Usually many, many times.
Hey, what strait is this about? I don't think it was said enough.
I'm surprised this channel only have 6k subscribers. This is high quality content. I wonder of you could make a similar video about the potential bridge/tunnel in the Bering strait between the Chukotka peninsula and Alaska.
Why would America want to provide land access to Russia?
@@richardrhodes9664 Is not only to Russia, but a bridge that connects Asia and the American continent, it would be very useful as an optional commercial and touristic route if the roads lead to countries like China and India.
@@martiddy Obviously yeah, but the video you are requesting would have very little to say because either side would not cooperate, and there are so few people in those areas. Existing methods of transport between the continents are far more efficient than bridge on the Bering straight.
It wouldn’t impede trade at all though, it just isn’t worth the effort to construct.
I mean he made a half hour video out of this one, I'm sure he could squeeze a very entertaining 10 minutes plus out of it. I'm definitely curious
The channel is only a few months old
A tunnel would make much more sense. But there isn’t much of an economic case to be made for either it or a bridge.
Tunnel wouldn't work. Tectonic plates. They'd tear the bridge in half, because they're going opposite directions of each other.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle that’s already engineered for in plenty of locations.
@@gordtulk Yeah. Mostly, I'd say use a floating bridge, akin to Oil Rigs/Platforms. Those things float in far less stable oceanic currents, so they'd work beautifully, and most can sit far, far, far above the waves. Plenty enough for container ships to pass under.
One of the best videos I've ever watched. Seriously. A+
Anywhere that is considered a major transit corridor for ships cannot have a bridge high enough to allow large ships to pass under it. Instead, ferry are used. I have lived along the Gulf Coast all of my life. We do have bridges for the ICW but not in the main shiplingnlanes other than Fred Hartman Bridge. But the Houston Ship channel is the reason why there are ferries to take you to Bolivar Peninsula.
Even if they can build a bridge high enough to allow large ships to pass under it the government and the military command of one or many countries will never allow that bridge to exist, reason?, well the reason is simple: the bridge can be sabotaged, it can be destroyed by airstrike and block shipping traffic in and out or through, what they can do is build a combination tunnel and bridge like they did here in Virginia, about 22 miles from head to head and two tunnels along the Chesapeake Bay.
I know Fred Hartman bridge in Baytown
Same in the Bartow channel separating mainland Texas from Mustang Island, Aransas Pass and Port Aransas. Ships pass through that narrow channel separating the gulf of Mexico and Corpus Christi Bay.
Hell yea me too camarada katy tx right here i feel that shoot my old boss used to be kayaking fishing on the icw lanes next to the bigass boats coming in and no problem
It's not about Technology. It's about Location.
A bridge high enough for ships has been built - West Gate Bridge, Melbourne, Australia 🇦🇺
At 2:00, Doesn't the Suez Canal serve the EASTERN Mediterranean?
Europe and Africa are two different worlds apart. You can never mix fire with water.
Europe:"there goes the neighborhood"
as the tectonic plates move, the bridge/tunnel would eventually shear and collapse, earthquakes are not that big a deal considering the current technology
the spanish and morrocans hate each other, they will probably will not get to an agreement
the video was very informative, thanks for all the effort put into it
I always thought that's where the flood myth comes from. During the end of the ice age, maybe as the ice was receding and the water rising, it broke through that thin part and flooded the land creating the sea.
I visited Algeciras, Gibraltar and Ceuta a few years ago. Was very disappointed with Algeciras. It was clearly a big resort town decades ago but now it's a big industrial park and cargo bay. Our hotel used to be on the beach but now there's a giant port where it used to be.
I made a mistake planning our trip to Ceuta, I thought it was part of Morroco. And I guess it is depending on who you ask.
No it isn't... Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish enclaves in Africa governed by Spain.
That's what you get for skipping on your geography classes 😂😂.
If you don't even bother looking at a map before planning a holiday to somewhere (you obviously) don't know, the shame is on you.
Your content is fantastic 👏
Wow thank you so much!!
that Lisbon earthquake was really bad, it was on a Sunday and just about everyone in a church was killed and then nearly everything else was wiped out by the tsunami aftermath, not many survived at all :(
I love how you explained it. It makes sense now. All this time I thought its to control or reduce economic migration of Africans into Europe.
Migration 99.99% why, all the rest is a nice way to back it up with science lol. I have been to Europe and I know how the westerners feel about us...last thing they want is poor Africans crossing over to their countries. If we were as rich or richer than them, you bet they would be the ones asking for this to sell their goods, but right now they want nothing to do with us
There's no real financial incentive for it