from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. A series of spans or arches used to carry a road or railroad over a wide valley or over other roads or railroads.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. A bridge with several spans that carries road or rail traffic over a valley or other obstacles.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. A structure of considerable magnitude, usually with arches or supported on trestles, for carrying a road, as a railroad, high above the ground or water; a bridge; especially, one for crossing a valley or a gorge. Cf. trestlework.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. An extensive bridge, consisting strictly of a series of arches of masonry, erected for the purpose of conducting a road or a railway over a valley or a district of low level, or over existing channels of communication, where an embankment would be impracticable or inexpedient; more widely, any elevated roadway for which artificial constructions of timber, iron, bricks, or stonework are established. Compare aqueduct.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. bridge consisting of a series of arches supported by piers used to carry a road (or railroad) over a valley
We've been told repeatedly that shutting down the viaduct is a public safety emergency.
A deep bore tunnel replacement for the viaduct is the only solution that gives us both.
The debate about replacing the viaduct is a complex series of interconnected policy decisions.
Personally, I think that the drive along the viaduct is the most beautiful in the city.
The footprint of the current viaduct is being replaced with a surface highway with exits downtown.
Since all of the ROW under the current viaduct is currently a "dead zone," should we all give a big "who cares" for all that space, too?
Anyone know who owns the land under the viaduct; is it the state or the city?
I believe the land under the viaduct is owned by the city, which has said it will continue to keep it under public ownership.
Didn't the Governor say (repeatedly) that the viaduct is unsafe and will come down by 2012?
By the way, should "tearing down the viaduct" really be described as part of "McGinn's preferred option" -- replacing the current viaduct is agreed upon by virtually everyone (or was there a retrofit option in this poll?).