- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,038
- 190,194
- 113
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This will put to rest the criticism of Iowa/Quad Cities being "boring"
New slogan? Iowa - All the gorings and twice the meth of Montana!This will put to rest the criticism of Iowa/Quad Cities being "boring"
New slogan? Iowa - All the gorings and twice the meth of Montana!
This is a bison bridge thread, son. The thread about your face is coming later.Dumb
I was just thinking that HORT needs to revisit “Guy on a Buffalo” and then I scrolled down to find you’re one step ahead of me.The Dirty D definitely has the type of people who will want to ride one home.
I’m sure they’ll save a spot for your mom.8 whole bison! This is literally one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen
PaywallNot sure how I missed this article, but hat tip to @General Tso for linking it in June:
Pregracke: First Bison Bridge workshop, 'Inspiring'
The alignment for the new Interstate 80 bridge at LeClaire and Rapids City has not yet been decided, but supporters of the proposed reuse, Bison Bridge, say the options beingqctimes.com
Nah, even she thinks its a dumb ideaI’m sure they’ll save a spot for your mom.
The bridge does not need to be realigned.I really dont see how they can re-align this bridge. The landscape, etc. just does not lend itself to that. It would be a massive cost and there really isnt a good reason.
I wish Iowa had a national park.
The bridge does not need to be realigned.
The project would actually save taxpayer money, as there would now be no demolition expenses and the Bison Bridge Foundation would cover the renovation costs and ongoing maintenance, freeing the DOT from that responsibility.
Why doesn't anyone READ the links?
It absolutely will not have to be re-aligned.If you are re-purposing the current bridge, then it will have to be re-aligned
Oh really? Did that project have a $4 million donor on hand and the promise that the project wouldn't require taxpayer funding?This reminds me of the Coralville Rainforest project.
Oh really? Did that project have a $4 million donor on hand and the promise that the project wouldn't require taxpayer funding?
As I seem to recall, that ENTIRE project was proposed as tax-funded from state coffers.
To me the biggest difference is this is a non-profit organization with a proven track record of pulling off major projects that require massive fundraising and the rainforest project which was a politician-driven, taxpayer funded project.Its been a while. As I recall the meat slicing guy was very involved in it. The first version was crazy big, then it got scaled back.
To me the biggest difference is this is a non-profit organization with a proven track record of pulling off major projects that require massive fundraising and the rainforest project was a politician-driven, taxpayer funded project.
You know nothing about Chad Pregracke if you think this is a vanity project.They are both bloated, stupid ideas.
How about a real national park? Not someone's vanity project.
You know nothing about Chad Pregracke if you think this is a vanity project.
And what is your metric for it being "bloated?" Once again, it's donor money being used, so why do you care?