Talk:Millau Viaduct/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tallest or Highest

Perhaps a little controversy as to which bridge is "highest". While the pillar of the Millau Viaduct is possibly the tallest, the roadway itself is "only" 891 feet above the valley. The 1,053 ft measurement for the Royal Gorge bridge is the distance from the road surface to the river below. I can't find the measurement for the top of the pillars of the Royal Gorge bridge. But, it is still the highest bridge in the world as near as I can see. THe Millau Viaduct can likely claim "tallest" though.

I'm sorry, but the article uses "meters" (the UM used by the world); how much is it 1052 ft? Thanks

answer: 1142.19 feet (reference: http://www.geocities.com/qubestrader/conversion.html)

I also noticed that the latest AP article (by a certain "Perrine Latrasse") asserted that the Royal Gorge "was designed for pedestrians", making the Millau the highest road bridge. However, the Royal Gorge actually does have one vehicular lane, and last time I was there they were indeed allowing vehicles to cross it (slowly—the deck is just wooden planks). So unless they have a rather narrow definition of "road bridge", I think they are still mistaken. --keckos

Although you can drive across it, does the Royal Gorge Bridge actually go anywhere? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well of course, it goes to the other side. ; ) And yes, there is something on the other side: see this park map. Satisfied? --keckos 11:31, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I think the point is that a 'road bridge' doesn't so much carry cars or traffic, but rather a road. Now you can get into semantics about what counts as a road as opposed to a street, a track or a trail, but in this context I think it needs to go between two places (towns) and it probably needs to have a prepared surface too. In which case an internal park driveway which arrives at a bridge which can support a car (one at a time?) on a wooden deck, probably doesn't count as a 'road bridge'. -- Solipsist 14:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To give some numbers: The royal gorge towers are 150ft (46m). (It is a much smaller bridge.) It is cited as being 1052ft (320m) high. I'm pretty sure this is the distance from the deck of the bridge to the Arkansas River. This is much higher than the 876ft(267m) that the Millau deck is above the Tarn. Even if the 1052ft measures from the top of the towers the deck is still at least 900ft above the river (more like 950, since it's only part way down the towers.) So, Millau is the tallest and Royal gorge is the highest. (Millau is also longer, wider, carries much more traffic, ...)

Also, (throwing in my two cents) roads don't have to be made from concrete (think of the term 'dirt road'). In 1927, very few were, still today, much of the western US is only accessible by dirt road, some of which have wooden bridges on them. I've driven across some pretty heavily used wooden bridge decks. The RGB is, at this point, just a tourist attraction and the only folks driving across it are doing it for the fun of it; but I get the impression that when it opened 80 years ago, it was actually an honest to goodness road with real non-tourist traffic. Jmeppley 15:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

So, skip the 'road bridge' part and call it vehicular bridge instead, aka bridge intended for vehicles not pedestrians (like the article already does) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.238.242 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Traffic

This article and most news articles about this bridge fail to say how many lanes of traffic, and what types of traffic the bridge is built to accomodate.

Four lanes of road traffic. I've amended the article accordingly. -- ChrisO 19:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pillar or pier

When I translated pile from fr:Viaduc de Millau, I picked "pillar." The external link yahoo news article also says "pillar." But the Millau Viaduct article, which I just found and redirected to this one, called them "piers." If anyone knows which word is most correct, please say so (or just change it). Nathan 15:39, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

The official site of the Rio-Antirio bridge calls them "pier", and this fits with one of the meanings of "pier" given by my dictionary. David.Monniaux 07:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Pier" seems like the least natural word in this context. It's technically correct, and might even be the architectural term (I am not an architect), but I think 'pillar' is a more common name for the vertical members of a bridge. Plus the cable-stayed bridge entry uses this word. - Plutor 16:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually Pier or Pylon is correct for bridges. Pillar is used when referring to a supporting member for the roof or roof sections such as a grand entry or a large hall. (Paul Bosanquet, Australia. No, I'm not an architect but I like Roman/Greek architecture.)

I think you're right - having checked on a number of professional architecture websites, the word "pier" does seem to be used preferentially for the vertical members of the Millau viaduct specifically. I've changed the article accordingly. -- ChrisO 19:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On first reading, I didn't understand that "pylon" and "pier" were the same thing. Here are some inconsistencies:

"The pylons each support 97 m tall masts." Should this be 88.92m? Should the article say "steel masts" here or somewhere?

"All the pylons are 97 m tall." Should this be "masts"? Should this be 88.92m?

"The seven masts, each 88.92 m high " Should this be "97m"?

"343 m: height of Pier 2, the tallest (245 m at the roadway's level)" I suggest "total height"?

"89 m: height of a mast" Should this be "97m"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.148.64 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. The official web site gives mast height as 87m. I've been through and made adjustments. --El Ingles (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Some odd phrasing

The following sentences sound odd. I can't really fathom their meaning, and so won't make edits, but if someone comes along who can figure them out, they should be changed.

The Millau viaduct consists of an eight-span steel roadway supported by seven concrete piers.

The word "span" seems out of place here. Are these "spans" somehow related to traffic lanes? Are they attached to one another? Are they separated by little walls? Very ambiguous.

I read this as meaning that the roadway consists of eight individual segments (which it does).

The roadway [...] curves in plan section on a 20 km radius

I get that it has a curve on a 20 km radius. But what does it mean to be "in plan section"? -- [User:Yath|Yath]] 21:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could this be a typo for "in plane section"? Not that that makes much more sense! -- ChrisO 22:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are both architectural terminology. A 'span' is a portion of a bridge between two supports, whether they be either side of a valley, or two piers. A 'section' is a drawing of a slice through a building, and the 'plan section' is the horizontal section showing the layout of the building as seen from above (most drawings would also show at least one vertical section, or 'elevation', too).

So it is not so much odd phrasing as technical jargon. It sounds like some additional explanation is in order though. -- Solipsist 01:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Name

Why Millau viaduct rather than Millau Viaduct? Isn't it a proper name, like Severn Bridge or Golden Gate Bridge? Millau Viaduct has a history - does this need to go to WP:RM? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

answer to name question: the name is written in the French manner: proper names have capital letters, the rest of road names etc are put in lower case.

I did it; the duplicate is now at Talk:Millau Viaduct/duplicate. Dunc|☺ 11:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it to Millau viaduct and deleted the duplicate, so the edit histories are now both in the article space. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

127,000 m³ or 85,000 m³?

In the section "Statistics", the total volume of concrete used is reported to be 85,000 m³.

In the subsection "Construction / Costs and resources", the total volume of concrete used is reported to be 127,000 m³.

Units

some of you are unbelievably petty! how many times are we still going to convert units backwards and forwards? can the next person who insists on converting units please keep both metric and imperial? 137.222.40.132 17:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no really need to include non-SI luddite units or FFU (=Fred Flintstone Units), just to feed some people's ignorance and arrogance. The information in SI units is understandable to all. If you are an ignorant person who claims not to know them, then take the effort to learn what 99 % of the world knows. Adding FFU only makes the articles look cluttered and unprofessional.

Here is the information on the bridge in correct units without the clutter of FFU:

Structural statistics

17 December 2004 : Opening of bridge to traffic

15 December 2004 : Inauguration)

10 October 2001 : Construction work started

343 m : Height at top of pylons

270 m : Height of roadway over the Tarn

2,460 m : Total length of roadway

8 spans resting on 7 piers

2230 tonnes : Weight of each of the 16 sections of road-deck. Each section is built up from 60 tonne deck-units, each 4 m wide by 17 m long. The deck-units are built in Eiffel’s factories at Lauterbourg and Fos-sur-Mer.

Heights of the 7 piers :

P1 : 94,50 m P2 : 244,96 m P3 : 221,05 m P4 : 144,21 m P5 : 136,42 m P6 : 111,94 m P7 : 77,56 m

97 m : Height of the 7 pylons

154 : Number of stays supporting the road-deck from the pylons

36,000 tonnes : Total weight of roadbed’s steel structure (5 times the Eiffel tower)

19,000 tonnes : Steel used for reinforcing the concrete piers

5,000 tonnes : Steel used for the stays and cables

4.20 m : Thickness of steel road-deck

32.05 m : Width of road-deck

205,000 tonnes : Concrete

85,000 m3 : Total volume of concrete 3% (approximately) : Slope (for safety, to enable better visibility)

9,000 tonnes : Road tarmac - specially flexible bitumen laid to 6cm thickness

4,000 tonnes : Standard bitumen for the emergency strips on either side 520 workers

300 million euro : Cost. The cost has finished at half the anticipated estimate. (plus 20 million euro for the toll station 6 km from the bridge’s North end).

120 years : Predicted lifespan

Architect: Norman Foster

Constructor: Eiffage Group. Their website has a number of short web films on the bridge as construction progresses and an animation of the bridge in use. (Note: commentaries in French.)

Paris-Clermont-Ferrand-Béziers : The Viaduc de Millau will complete this north-south motorway through te heart of France, crossing the Massif Central.

Tolls - 4.60 euro: off-season, 6.50 euro: during July and August; both charges for light vehicles. Lorries: 20 euro throughout the year. The rest of the 340 km A75 autoroute is free.

Constructed for the A75 motorway (autoroute) - the Méridienne. The weblink provided is to the English version of the motorway company’s “complete file”, which details the original planning for the route taken and for the final choice of bridge structure (includes maps, photos and diagrams)

http://www.abelard.org/france/viaduct-de-millau.asp

Happy Metric Motoring!

You could also add to that: Speed limit 110km/h, and a typical end-to-end travel time if anyone knows it (I estimate about 1 minute 23 seconds at around the legal limit, so take advantage of it and drive slow, don't let the trucks have all the enjoyment... 2 minutes and 9 at 70km/h). Oddly, I thought it was only 70, as those are the only limit signs seen in the background of the top gear bridge trip review) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"There is no really need to include non-SI luddite units "

But you used "tonnes"... which is not an SI unit. I'm just saying! ;-)

I agree that metric should be given first here, seeing as this bridge would have been engineered in metric units. However, even in the metricated world many still have a more natural feel for imperial units (even my Canadian relatives use pounds and feet in conversation). So, why is there an objection to having metric (primarily here) and then imperial units in brackets following?

I should point out that by using the commar as both a "10 to the third power" separator AND as a decimal point, you too are confusing the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20.133.0.1 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I've also noticed that you wrote the toll wrong. The correct way to write euro values would be €4.60 and €6.50.

Miles, feet and inches etc. are also perfectly valid units in the EU. The UK has all its speed limits and distance signs in miles. In some cases it even happens in France. When in a Parisian bar, I ordered "un demi" and was served a half-pint of beer, not a half-litre. No-one is saying to get rid of metric units, that is what a large number of people in the world understand. However, there are around 400 million people in the world (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) for whom imperial units are still the "natural" units, whether or not they are the official units. I agree, keep the metric units with imperial units following in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.43.240 (talk) 10:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

>When in a Parisian bar, I ordered "un demi" and was served a half-pint of beer< No you weren't, you were served 250cl. It was probably marked on the glass as such. For obscure reasons, a demi is actually a demi-demi in French bar parlance. In many bars it's possible to order a véritable demi — 500cl — in others that would be called a sérieux. (From one with vast experience of drinking in France) --El Ingles (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

3 percent or 3 degrees?

The roadway has a slight slope of 3%

I assume this means 3°, as that is how slopes are usually measured, but I'm no engineer. Ливай | ☺ 22:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, an "angle" is measured in degress, but a "slope" is the ratio of rise to run, and is the measurement favored by architects. 3%=3/100; Google says "arctan(3 / 100) in degrees" = 1.718358 (not 3). Keckos

Over here in Britain you often see road signs warning of steep slopes, measured in degrees. -- ChrisO

Well actually, I think the UK only has older road signs which show gradients as a ratio ( 1:4 or 'one in four' ) or newer signs which give the gradient as a percentage ( 20% ). See for example [1] (where the pictures also prove that all UK road signs are held in place by school children...) -- Solipsist 11:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone's got their degrees and their percents mixed up :) Though there's no good reason other than railroading history why they *couldn't* be used (well, that and the proportionality is all wrong - the difference between a 1 degree and 2 degree slope is much more important than between a 21 and 22 degree)82.46.180.56 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Slopes are measured as ratios, on both roads and railways. -- Anon.

This is why I didn't decide to major in mathematics/engineering/anything requiring calculation. Thanks for clearing that up for me guys. Ливай | ☺ 17:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Picture

You can see a pic of Millau at night on Serbian Wikipedia. --pokrajac 00:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FAC?

I have posted this on WP:PR with a view to going to WP:FAC in a while. The page looks short but pretty complete to me - what else should be added? Some paper references would be good, but the web pages should suffice.

One area confuses me: the last paragraph of section 3.3 (Costs and resources) says:

The project required about 127,000 m³ of concrete ...

but the next section states:

• 85,000 m³: total volume of concrete used

Which is right? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Toll Free ?

My understanding was that the section of road from Clermont Ferrand south was only toll free until the Viaduct opened. Perhaps someone can confirm that tolls are now in place all the way to the south coast CustardJack 12:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having crossed it two days ago, it is toll from from Clermont Ferrand to the turnoff for Millau and toll free from Millau to Montpellier. the bridge itself is now 5.10 Euro for light cars- Gandalf

As a resident of Millau, I can confirm the A75 south of Clermont Ferrand is STILL toll free as far as Junction 45 to Millau; the 10 km section including the Viaduct as far south as junction 46 to La Cavalerie is tolled at €5.10 for cars, then the A75 is free to the end of the current motorway at Pezenas in Herault. The short A750 spur south of Lodève in Herault from St Felix to St André de Sangonis (& soon to Gignac) and ultimately to Montpellier is also free. There is no sign of building the toll booth areas. Larzac1 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC) May 08

Height?

The first paragraph says "...it is the tallest vehicular bridge in the world, with one pier's summit at 343 metres (1,125 ft)...", but then the Description paragraph says "The Millau Viaduct is the second highest vehicular bridge measured from the roadway elevation. Its deck, at approximately 270 m (886 ft) above the Tarn, is slightly higher than the New River Gorge Bridge in West Virginia in the United States, which is 267 m (876 ft) above the New River. The Royal Gorge Bridge in Colorado, United States has a deck considerably higher than either, at 321 m (1,053 ft) above the Arkansas River". Which one of these is true? If the bridge was 1,125 ft off the ground, then it would be the tallest in the world. bruce89 11:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the 343 metres measure refers to the height to the top of the tallest tower (ie pier) from its base. But the highest vehicular bridge record is about the height to the road deck. With a cable stayed (and suspension bridges and several other designs) the road deck is some way below the top of the tallest tower - in this case its presumably about 70m lower.

With respect to the comparison with other bridges, the main issue is that the Royal Gorge Bridge is barely a road bridge, but it depends where you want to draw the line in your definitions. -- Solipsist 12:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Time Benefit?

How much time is saved crossing the valley because of this bridge? --Commking 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A considerable amount of time, but how much depends on the time of year. It was not uncommon to spend 4 hours driving via Millau on the old Route National 9 on a Saturday in summer. Actually, 'driving' is not quite the right word - crawling would be better. Even on a less busy day, the route through the town of Millau, though spectacular, would still take about an hour, assuming no hold ups. The A75 over the viaduct takes about 15 minutes to cover the 42km of road it has replaced. I went over the viaduct a few days ago for the tenth time - a great sight! Emeraude 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And here is the article to cite the time-savings: http://tollroadsnews.info/artman/publish/article_745.shtml they claim .75 to 3 hrs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.238.242 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Pedestrian Path?

Is it possible to walk across this bridge? --Eraticus 19:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not - it's a motorway so stopping is not allowed either. There is a viewpoint constructed at the north end of the bridge accessed from the motorway, and there are excellent vantage points all around. A visitor centre is located UNDER the bridge. Emeraude 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a walkway though, so it is possible (last, bottom-right picture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.238.242 (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Curved for visibility?

The article says that it is curved on a 20km radius "to give drivers better visibility". It occurs to me, however, that this curve is likely to be of huge benefit to the bridge in terms of stability - I think it is far more likely to be an engineering decision than a practical one, though added visibility may well be an additional effect.

Yeah there's no way they curved it for the drivers' benefit. The Confederation bridge that goes from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island is also curved a lot, to prevent it from collapsing from high winds. 216.13.217.231 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Norman Foster, the architect who designed the Viaduct, says he curved it so drivers could see it all as they drove across - it is principally for aesthetic reasons Larzac1 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of construction/engineering Info

I think the article would benefit from more about the construction of the bridge. It is generally regarded as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, engineering achievement ever. You only have to consider that the motorway was built over a hundred miles away, and moved on top of the pillars which as we know are over 200m above the ground. The whole thing could have been destroyed had any mistakes been made at this stage. On top of that there were 0 major injuries to workers involved. No disrespect to Norman Foster, but in terms of the whole construction of the bridge, his contribution is dwarfed by the engineering feat. Macgruder 12:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What you say is abundantly true in any event, Macgruder, but consider this from Private Eye No. 1266, p12, a review of Deyan Sudjic's Norman Foster: A Life in Architecture:

[Speaking of fulsome praise for Foster]This reaches its apogee with the adulation of Foster as the designer of the astonishing vertiginous seven-span (sic) Viaduc de Millau. Here, the author grudgingly acknowledges that our Norman worked with Michel Virlogeux, "the French engineer who was responsible for the calculations on which the design depends". In other words, he was the man who actually designed it. And he did. The full story is given in Exploding the Myths of Modern Architecture by Malcolm Millais (an engineer). The concept was entirely Virlogeux's but, for political reasons, Foster was brought in to get the project to go ahead and his firm merely refined the shape of the columns and improved the way the deck meets the hillside. Sudjic reveals that Foster made the cables and handrails white rather than black. Genius!

In a review of Sudjic, Jonathan Meade notes that Foster had not seen "his" viaduct until a few weeks before it opened and "according to the starchitect-struck Midi-Libre, Milord helicoptered himself in and lavished all of forty precious minutes on it."

Moletrouser (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Viaduct Voted a Wonder of the World

I'd make the entry myself but it's partly due to laziness and lack of formatting skills which prevents me from doing so

Anyway, according Classic FM, the Viaduct has been voted as one of the new Wonders of the World http://www.classicfmwonders.com/

--Jayau1234 11:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Translation

I am beginning a translation from the French article, and I will integrate all info into the current article. Max Naylor 12:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If French text has not been translated to English can I ask that it please not be added to this article? I feel like it makes the article confusing and hard to read. I think that's why this talk page is here and a sandbox article could always be created to experiment with. If I hear no response in a day I will attempt to remove all French text from the article (this seems only appropriate). That said, let me stress that I do appreciate the efforts of others to improve this article!!! Thanks all JeffreyN 15:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the French text from the article, since it is copied from the French Wikipedia. I have created a workpage, Talk:Millau Viaduct/Translation, where work on the translation of this page from French to English can be done. Please do any translation work there, and when finished, please copy the content there to the main article. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are the structural engineers?

Nowhere are they mentioned as it stands, and if there was ever a construction project that needed structural engineering expertise, this is it.

I very strongly suspect that what we translators have rendered as "design offices" (bureaux d'études) are in fact structural engineers. My dictionary of technical French wants a structural engineer to be merely a "génie civil" but I'm not convinced. Anybody object if I make that change? El Ingles 13:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no dissent, I am making that change. El Ingles 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

External links and references

The 'external links' section is much longer than the 'references' section. Please move the links used as references (using them inline is much better for verifiability of individual sentences) and remove redundant ones as appropriate. See WP:CITE and WP:EL for more information. Ǣ0ƞS 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Millau bridge??

This has been killing me for ages... (well only actually for a couple months). Can anyone confirm if this photo: http://arden.netfirms.com/millau.jpg is a picture of the Millau bridge? Thanks! ArdenD 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. It must have been taken by an extremely wide-angle ("fish-eye") lens, facing East. It must have been shot from an aircraft of some kind, since no place on land has this vantage point. The temporary supports between the main pylons are still in place, and the masts and cabling are in place on P2 and P3 only. Therefore this must have been shot about July 2004. Cheers. --El Ingles 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When you look at the photos in the article e.g. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Wiadukt_Millau.jpg, you wonder why they didn't just build a highway down through the valley, but that photo shows it's not as simple as it looks

I don't think that's a fisheye picture, but a well-put-together panoramic collage, given that there seems to be slight changes to the exposure and colour balance in a number of vertical strips (actual semi-panoramic images turned to portrait dimensions). Probably taken from a helicopter in a very stable hover. Also, having made 'ideal world' highway plans for my local area, nothing's as simple as it seems at first glance - that looks like a very lumpy floored, high/steep sided valley for one thing, whose challenges at ground level are probably as difficult as and wouldn't have provided anywhere near as fast or as awe-inspiring (just some of these flat photographs are giving me serious pause for though) as the bridge (the default easy way to impress someone) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Really dramamtic. Why not figure out who owns it and see if they'll allow use here? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a major problem. There is no right of panorama in France- so any image if the bridge is copyrighted by the architect who will not release it under a free licence. If the image discussed looks is a collage- Each image in the collage is owned by its photographer. There will be a copyright on the act of creating the collage, and on the act of publishing it. Under our rules: we have to obey the laws of Florida where our servers are located and the laws of the country where the object is located and published and where you are located. This has been discussed before at commons:Commons talk:Licensing. However you may like to try the fair use route on en:wikipedia, where you have to satisfy 10 conditions beyond reasonable doubt. ClemRutter (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Statistics awkward to read

The "Statistics" section reminds me of those "numbers" sections in some articles, in which the statistics are stated backwards, so as to impress readers with numbers. It seems out of place and is annoying to read:

• 2,460 m (8,071 ft): total length of the roadway
• 7: number of piers
• ...

Instead of

• Total length of the roadway: 2,460 m (8,071 ft)
• Number of piers: 7
• ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.86.119 (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete/Confusing History

The chronological section is laid out topically, and jumps large time spans, making it easy to ignore and gloss over important details. I found these links useful, if someone would like to incorporate them into a redesigned chronology section:

talk with Virlogeux: http://www.jfccivilengineer.com/le_concepteur.htm

press release, information on last paragraph: http://www.dezeen.com/2007/03/21/millau-viaduct-by-foster-partners/

lots of information, first mention of enerpac: http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/story.asp?story=5308&headline=Millau%20Viaduct%20Rises%20to%20a%20Record%20Height

brief on enerpacs website: http://www.enerpac.com/millau/Millau_Viaduct_Project/Millau.html

lots of facts: http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0000351

As I can tell, there was a lot of tension between SETRA and Virlogeux, leading to Foster & Partners. The first press release seems to say that a team of architect-engineer was required by the Department of Transport and Public Works of France, even though the entire thing was motivated by SETRA. But I cant find who hosted the competition, SETRA, DTPW, etc...

Preliminary, unfinished (possibly too informal) history

In 1987 CETE drafted up four possible routes through Aveyron plans to finalize the A75 autoroute and facilitate a less congested mode of travel across the river Tarn. and. in Aix-en-Provence decreed a bridge as a more natural choice over tunnel, and in 2001 As head of SETRA's structures division, Virlogeux had since then been roughing out the structural implementation with the dutch firm ARCADIS. However several years into R&D SETRA's new director, desiring publicity, hired a group of 8 engineers and 7 architects to refine and diversify the initial plans. Eventually the firm decided to discontinue Virlogeux's involvement in favor of external architecture-engineer groups. In response Virlogeux spearheaded the Foster & Partners group, which went on to win the bid. The winner contruction

Contradiction

Millau and the Royal George bridge both claim that their deck height is larger than the other in both the Millau and the Royal Gorge Bridge articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Balinghe Bridge is even higher

Balinghe bridge in Guizhou province of China is a big suspension bridge with a span of 1088m, its road deck is 370m(clearance) high from the Baling river, I think it's the tallest bridge in the world. for more information, please see http://baike.baidu.com/view/1130690.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.68.163.4 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Toll Plaza Photo

When I first read the article I wanted a photo of the Toll Plaza because it is hard to imagine the "leaf shape". When I was in the area I managed to get a photo of the plaza however it's not the best. If someone has a better quality picture please replace mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.67.156 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done ClemRutter (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons Photographs FoP Problem

France has no Freedom of Panorama provision, so commons must delete any photographs of a modern work of art. (This includes images in this article.)The bridge cannot be photographed- so many of the best images and even some of mine have be tagged for deletion.Image:Millau7663.JPG A photograph where the bridge is in the background, and not the main subject of the photograph may be acceptable to Commons. This does mean that in future, superb photographs of the bridge will be added to commons and removed. The situation may be different for photos stored on en:wikipedia. I think this needs to be discussed and if necessary images should be duplicated on en:wikipedia awaiting a judgement. ClemRutter (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Has been supersed

El Puente Baluarte tendrá una longitud de mil 124 metros; será la estructura atirantada más grande de América Latina, ya que cuenta con una altura de 390 metros, lo que permitirá librar una barranca de esta profundidad con un claro central de 520 metros, y ahorrará de tres horas y media de recorrido total de la autopista, porque actualmente la distancia entre Durango-Mazatlán es de cinco horas promedio.

Was hast du gesagt? In English please. --Siipikarja ♫ 12:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Translate:

Baluarte Bridge will have a length of one thousand 124 meters, will be braced structure Latin America's largest, since it has a height of 390 meters, which will allow this fight a deep ravine with a center span of 520 meters, and save three hours of total travel of the highway, because at present the distance between the Durango-Mazatlan is five hours on average.

Rojomoke (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor contradiction in distance of Toll Plaza from viaduct

Seems the article states in two places that the Toll Plaza is 4km and 6km from the end of the viaduct. Can someone check and fix it so it's consistent? Sambridger (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

MegaStructures

34 World’s Tallest Bridge (Millau Bridge) Viaduct neatr Millau, France 12/20/2005

A whole episode was dedicated to the bridge and the build of it... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaStructures - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 21:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality

Isn't it about time to start deleting text that is not supported by a reference? I would say that this article is now only 'c' grade as it fails 'B' criteria 1. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Clem, sounds like you may have misunderstood wiki "policy" on citations. Material that is likely to be challenged needs backup — that would not apply to physical facts about a structure such as this. --El Ingles (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding is one of my finest attributes! However I also forget what the article did look like- and read what it says today, it is littered with fluff.

• The Eiffage group, which constructed the viaduct, also operates it, under a government contract which allows the company to collect tolls for up to 75 years. The toll bridge costs €5.60 for light automobiles (€7.40 during the peak months of July and August). (dated info)
• As it was, the traffic from the autoroute brought pollution and danger to the town of Millau. (POV?)
• The construction of the bridge was depicted in an episode of the National Geographic Channel MegaStructures series, as well as Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering. (!!!)

And these whole sections

• Pedestrian sporting events
• Famous visitors
• Miscellanea

There are tags all over asking for citations.

The French version fr:Viaduc de Millau has a 117 references: most of which can be copied over. They have had a lot of problems with copvios- as some of the text has been a cut and paste from official documents- without references we are vulnerable. If you look at the critical paragraph in progress grading scheme is It has reliable sources and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Without a comma to make the meaning clearer it does say any important material must be supported by a cite. No matter- it will need to be verifiable for 'GA'. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This bridge is a marvellous object, but the article isn't focused on it. It reads like a promotional magazine article with too many detailed facts. For example, there's too much information on routes; the timeline of the project could be condensed (or referenced); the list of famous visitors is probably of little interest to most readers; points in the 'miscellaneous' section could be integrated (or discarded). I'm marking it for cleanup, and don't think it's better than C-class. Twang (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Decrees etc.

When mentioning official decisions by the French government, please give a link to Légifrance. Decrees etc. are numbered, there is no reason to be vague. David.Monniaux (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Masts before or after roadway?

The article as it stands at the moment says that the top parts of the masts were added after the roadway was completed (a fairly detailed description with heading Erection of Masts, and in the general Description). A National Geographic video on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4ZNMEpsocY , 41 seconds in, however, clearly shows the roadway being pushed out with a top part of mast already attached. Possibly only the "leading end" of the roadway had a mast already attached, and the others were added later, but does anyone have any other actual references for how it was done? FrankSier (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found another video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPM79xM5mIY&feature=related , especially 3 mins 15 secs in, which lends support to the idea of the leading ends having pre-attached masts. It also nicely shows the extra temporary pylons (painted red). FrankSier (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)