I live a 2-hour drive from this, so I have driven on it several times. It's very impressive and always a nice part of the journey.
And it's not only beautiful, it's also very useful. Before it was built, you had to go through small roads and villages, which, in addition to taking more time, was not very comfortable for the people living there.
I remember as a child being stuck in the back seat of the car for over three hours in 35°C heat just to get through Millau.
The town is at the bottom of a very steep valley and it is very difficult to avoid (this involves extremely steep and narrow farm roads that are difficult to navigate without a small 4x4).
> in addition to taking more time, was not very comfortable for the people living there.
That’s quite the understatement. I remember taking one hour to get to the bottom of the valley from the Larzac, and then one hour again to get back up on the other side. We’d often stop for lunch or a coffee in Millau just to do anything at all that was not sitting in the car, but the city was entirely choked by this overwhelming traffic. The viaduct was a massive improvement. And sure, it affected local restaurants and bars, but the city is much more liveable now.
TBH most people I know who regularly drive there still take the Millau valley route, since the viaduct toll is quite expensive at 13€ in the summer (just to cross the bridge)
Doing a bit of googling it seems people report saving anything from 20 min to 1 hour by taking the bridge. But during some particular holidays, where there is lots of traffic, the saving can become 4 hours.
I suppose the 4 hours saving comes from a lot of people being on the non-bridge route, meaning a lot of people choose to not take the bridge. Is there any other possible reason for the 4 hours saved?
It's a substantially flatter, straighter line, and much higher capacity. The valley route is only a single lane in each direction with no grade separation at intersections and you are comparing that to a four lane freeway.
I especially like the “Team” section of this page. Great recognition given to everyone who participated in this project, all the way to the humblest architecture school intern!
expressing a fascination with the relationship between function, technology and aesthetics in a graceful structural form
I really like the viaduct, but one thing I'm always wondering about when I read such take as one : can you show me how ugly it could have been ? Do we have others proposals for the same bridge where the engineers would have produced something without an architect and the result wouldn't have been a gracious mix respecting the landscape forms ?
I want to believe what's written. At the same time, I never got any proof for such sentences, it's always blurry, poetic, without any demonstration trying to minimize varying factors as scientist like to do.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The residents of Alexandria, VA successfully lobbied to change the design of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge as they thought a suspension bridge would be an "eyesore."
Interesting that the description mentions a year of training! Not something I immediately think of when I see one of these daredevil stunts, but it makes sense that he'd spend a while making sure he can reliably go through an opening of relevant dimensions
I was lucky enough to visit a few years ago. A great technical achievement and a design classic.
The approach from the Mediterranean side is very well done. The road curves with a hill blocking most of the bridge. As you turn the corner, the bridge comes into view. As you move onto the bridge and valley drops away and you get an idea of how high you are.
Later on I got the view from an airplane after leaving Béziers. A different view but did show how the bridge sits in the landscape.
I drove over this bridge on a trip to France back in 2023. Pictures don't do it full justice - it is quite impressive to see in person. If you are anywhere nearby, consider making a detour to see it.
I visited it last year. It’s 2.4km long and at its highest point the Eiffel Tower could fit under the road. Remarkably the construction cost was only €394 million.
For comparison the planned 4.2km Lower Thames Crossing has already cost £1.2bn (€1,400 million) just for the planning phase with nothing built. The French know how to build.
- it was completed ahead of schedule and with no budget overrun. The construction company (Eiffage) had a strong incentive to do so: the deal was that they supported a most of the cost but in exchange got to collect the tolls
- they have small mirrors all over the viaduct used to measure its movement - a bit like real-life telemetry
Accidentally took a wrong turn and drove over this once and had to cop a toll despite turning back around afterwards. Was well worth it for the experience though!
I drove over this bridge over a decade ago and stopped at the visitor center just below it. As an engineering and architect geek it was the highlight of the trip for me (and the family too!).
As Bad Bunny said, "debi tirar mas photos!", because I didn't take nearly enough.
Love it! One of my favorite (round) trips, this one from Occitanie to Auvergne, twice a year, for acquisition of Salers, Cantal, Saint Nectaire and saucisson d'Auvergne, from their source :)
Everything I can find about it is overwhelmingly positive but I'd be interested to hear some counterarguments. I've never seen it in person, but to me, it is a bit too angular and brutalist. Something with a more arched styling could have been nice, if it was technically feasible.
It is difficult to appreciate without seeing it in person, but considering its absolutely massive scale and that everything about it is just humongous, it blends in the landscape much better than it should. Sure, it is visible, but not overpowering. Norman Foster explained how he tried to blend it with the horizon and the sky and I think he did a fairly good job. The straight lines are unobtrusive. They are there, but they do not command attention.
I could see people objecting to ruining the look of the countryside and nature with the bridge. It cost almost $500 million in the 2000s. And the village would probably benefit from all that traffic if you consider more traffic good.
Some restaurants and bars lost out when the traffic went away, but the city as a whole did not really. It is in a very scenic place in a very touristic region, and very well connected thanks to the motorway.
Ha, that's such a funny way to think of it the differences. And actually quite accurate as a description in the case of American English, since Noah Webster actively rejected the original British spelling.
And it's not only beautiful, it's also very useful. Before it was built, you had to go through small roads and villages, which, in addition to taking more time, was not very comfortable for the people living there.
reply