Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) complete collapse after large ship hits it

[Chris]

I wonder if this design is different from the one released by the Coast Guard in November 2024?

https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=90657&Source=/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=90657

[Plutonic Panda]

Will it be built with modern lane widths and shoulders? It'd be nice see a bike/pedestrian pathway but the cities should pay for that.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Will it be built with modern lane widths and shoulders?

Yes, it will be built with a 10-foot shoulder on the right and a 4-foot shoulder on the left.

[Henry]

https://x.com/HellgrenWJZ/status/1886826843174518900

This is surely going to be an elegant complement to the skyline! Someone even suggested lighting it up with the colors of its respective teams, and I think that would be a great idea to do so. And I like that it will be built to modern standards and have a wider navigation channel than the old bridge did, complete with massive dolphins to help prevent another MV Dali.

[jeffandnicole]

https://x.com/HellgrenWJZ/status/1886826843174518900

This is surely going to be an elegant complement to the skyline! Someone even suggested lighting it up with the colors of its respective teams, and I think that would be a great idea to do so. And I like that it will be built to modern standards and have a wider navigation channel than the old bridge did, complete with massive dolphins to help prevent another MV Dali.

Any lighting will likely be LED lighting which can be set to any color.

[Mr. Matté]

Whatever happened to all the needs for an EIS and increasing the length of time prior to construction if they weren't building exactly what was there before (as in the smaller truss, substandard four lanes no shoulders, etc)? Had that been waived by the feds? And with the completely different administration there now, wouldn't some of the prior promises made not necessary be kept?

[vdeane]

Whatever happened to all the needs for an EIS and increasing the length of time prior to construction if they weren't building exactly what was there before (as in the smaller truss, substandard four lanes no shoulders, etc)? Had that been waived by the feds? And with the completely different administration there now, wouldn't some of the prior promises made not necessary be kept?

Building in approximately the same footprint doesn't require the project to be so identical that they may as well brush off the original plans and build them again; I believe "same general size/configuration/location but modern standards" still fits the bill.

[bwana39]

https://www.marinelink.com/news/usace-grants-permit-reconstruction-523233#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Army%20Corps%20of,the%20lives%20of%20six%20Baltimoreans.

[BrianP]

There's another discussion thread about the Key bridge and ship strike assessments. 
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35814.0
I assume it was posted in the bridges forum to get a broader audience to possibly bring up discussion of the other bridges mentioned, not any specifically, that should have ship strike assessments done.

[74/171FAN]

There's another discussion thread about the Key bridge and ship strike assessments. 
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35814.0
I assume it was posted in the bridges forum to get a broader audience to possibly bring up discussion of the other bridges mentioned, not any specifically, that should have ship strike assessments done.

Yeah, I was about to recommend merging the threads, but after relooking at the other one it is fine staying there as-is. -Mark

[roadman65]

The same agency that decides what interstate and US routes should be and are numbered sets the guidelines for bridge safety that the NTSB is using.

The National Transportation and Safety Board is looking at other bridges to make sure bridge owners are following AASHTO guidelines for protection against possible ship strikes as the one year anniversary is near.

[roadman65]

I just saw a railfan video of a NS Freight train go across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal on a 1966 built lift bridge that has no protection if a ship hits it's towers.

The NTSB didn't include it on its list I don't think

[jeffandnicole]

I just saw a railfan video of a NS Freight train go across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal on a 1966 built lift bridge that has no protection if a ship hits it's towers.

The NTSB didn't include it on its list I don't think

Based on my local look, the NTSB appeared to only consider *fixed* spans with 80' of clearance. I think this is a tremendous oversight. 

[Beltway]

Whatever happened to all the needs for an EIS and increasing the length of time prior to construction if they weren't building exactly what was there before (as in the smaller truss, substandard four lanes no shoulders, etc)? Had that been waived by the feds? And with the completely different administration there now, wouldn't some of the prior promises made not necessary be kept?

I think it is abominable that FHWA Maryland Division granted a CATEX for this proposed bridge.

MDTA made a unilateral decision in private board rooms with no public input on the new design.

A crossing of this magnitude is not some routine emergency replacement of a bridge on the order of the collapsed MD-404 Denton bridge in 1976. (My parents retired near there in 1974).

I have my opinion on what alternative should be selected, but the most important thing is to engage the public and the associated resource agencies, and to lay out the alternatives before them and then to make an informed decision by the highway agencies.

Conduct full NEPA EIS process
1) State highway agency prepares Draft EIS -- compile comments from associated resource agencies, prepare a full range of feasible alternatives, evaluate environmental impacts
2) State highway agency conducts public hearings where alternatives are presented, with a public comment period.
3) State highway agency selects preferred alternative
4) State highway agency prepares Final EIS
5) FHWA approves or disapproves Final EIS
6) State highway agency prepares Record of Decision
7) FHWA approves or disapproves Record of Decision

The ship collision and bridge collapse in and of itself is a catastrophic event to both the natural environment and the human built environment.

Building a replacement crossing that will prevent such events in the future, is also relevant to protecting the natural environment and the human built environment.

Evaluating the issues of any protection scheme needs NEPA EIS study to determine what size can be built within hydrological constraints.

Therefore I strongly urge that FHWA require a full NEPA EIS on the project.

It was a Black Swan Event.

Murphy's Law highlights the inevitability of failure in complex systems, which aligns with the idea that unforeseen disruptions can and do happen.

So civil engineers do need to consider that a Black Swan Event could destroy your $2 billion bridge designed for 100 year life -- a week after it is completed. And maybe kill hundreds of people. And maybe spread dangerous cargo floating all over the harbor.

The proposed main span would be 1,400 feet. The former span of 1,200 feet proved that totally inadequate to protect from large ships.

The Sollers Point location is not a safe place to build a bridge similar to the old one in span lengths. The risks are catastrophic as we have just seen.

Reasonable and prudent alternatives, so that there are no deep water piers that can be hit by very large size ships.
1) Build a bridge with a 5,200 foot long main span between the two causeways
2) Build the original 6,200 foot long tunnel design between the two causeways
3) No-Build Alternative
If they are not willing to select Alternative 1 or 2, they should select Alternative 3.

[PColumbus73]

I disagree that a mile long main span should be the only option for a bridge. The rebuilt Sunshine Skyway and Ravenel Bridge in Charleston have their main towers built on islands on either side of the main shipping channel. If the Key Bridge is rebuilt in a similar fashion with dolphins / collision deterrents like those seen on the Skyway and Ravenel, then there shouldn't be a problem with maintaining a 1,200-1,400 span across the Pataspco River.

Secondly, there's only a hand full of bridges with a mile-long central span in the world. So, mandating that the bridge must have a mile-long span over the river is unrealistic.

[jeffandnicole]

Whatever happened to all the needs for an EIS and increasing the length of time prior to construction if they weren't building exactly what was there before (as in the smaller truss, substandard four lanes no shoulders, etc)? Had that been waived by the feds? And with the completely different administration there now, wouldn't some of the prior promises made not necessary be kept?

I think it is abominable that FHWA Maryland Division granted a CATEX for this proposed bridge.

MDTA made a unilateral decision in private board rooms with no public input on the new design.

A crossing of this magnitude is not some routine emergency replacement of a bridge on the order of the collapsed MD-404 Denton bridge in 1976. (My parents retired near there in 1974).

I have my opinion on what alternative should be selected, but the most important thing is to engage the public and the associated resource agencies, and to lay out the alternatives before them and then to make an informed decision by the highway agencies.

Conduct full NEPA EIS process
1) State highway agency prepares Draft EIS -- compile comments from associated resource agencies, prepare a full range of feasible alternatives, evaluate environmental impacts
2) State highway agency conducts public hearings where alternatives are presented, with a public comment period.
3) State highway agency selects preferred alternative
4) State highway agency prepares Final EIS
5) FHWA approves or disapproves Final EIS
6) State highway agency prepares Record of Decision
7) FHWA approves or disapproves Record of Decision

The ship collision and bridge collapse in and of itself is a catastrophic event to both the natural environment and the human built environment.

Building a replacement crossing that will prevent such events in the future, is also relevant to protecting the natural environment and the human built environment.

Evaluating the issues of any protection scheme needs NEPA EIS study to determine what size can be built within hydrological constraints.

Therefore I strongly urge that FHWA require a full NEPA EIS on the project.

It was a Black Swan Event.

Murphy's Law highlights the inevitability of failure in complex systems, which aligns with the idea that unforeseen disruptions can and do happen.

So civil engineers do need to consider that a Black Swan Event could destroy your $2 billion bridge designed for 100 year life -- a week after it is completed. And maybe kill hundreds of people. And maybe spread dangerous cargo floating all over the harbor.

The proposed main span would be 1,400 feet. The former span of 1,200 feet proved that totally inadequate to protect from large ships.

The Sollers Point location is not a safe place to build a bridge similar to the old one in span lengths. The risks are catastrophic as we have just seen.

Reasonable and prudent alternatives, so that there are no deep water piers that can be hit by very large size ships.
1) Build a bridge with a 5,200 foot long main span between the two causeways
2) Build the original 6,200 foot long tunnel design between the two causeways
3) No-Build Alternative
If they are not willing to select Alternative 1 or 2, they should select Alternative 3.

Posts like this explain why the public isn't often part of design processes.

[Beltway]

I disagree that a mile long main span should be the only option for a bridge. The rebuilt Sunshine Skyway and Ravenel Bridge in Charleston have their main towers built on islands on either side of the main shipping channel. If the Key Bridge is rebuilt in a similar fashion with dolphins / collision deterrents like those seen on the Skyway and Ravenel, then there shouldn't be a problem with maintaining a 1,200-1,400 span across the Pataspco River.

The Sunshine Skyway and their protective measures is a 40-year old design when ships were much smaller. MV Summit Venture was around 19,000 tons.

A 100,000 ton ship moving at channel speed would tear all that to pieces and the Skyway would be kaput.

You can find the official nautical chart online --
NOAA Chart 11412 Tampa Bay and St. Joseph Sound

Water depths at the Sunshine Skyway main piers is 30 feet MLLW.

Given high tides and Spring tides and strong westerly winds it could be 35 or 36 feet which is almost the draft of the Dali, and some very large ships would still draw less than that.

The Skyway is one of the bridges that some maritime interests have declared obsolete and inadequate for current and future shipping clearances, and they are calling for replacements.

Secondly, there's only a hand full of bridges with a mile-long central span in the world. So, mandating that the bridge must have a mile-long span over the river is unrealistic.

There are nine suspension bridges in the world with a main span of 5,000 feet or longer. The longest is 6,637 feet.

If there is a good reason to build one then that is justification.

[Henry]

Obviously, building a tunnel at that location would be a nonstarter, especially since I-95 was not going to get the bridge as originally planned because of aesthetic concerns, so this was a viable tradeoff. And a no-build alternative is not going to fly either, because the main goal is to make I-695 a complete loop again, which this project will achieve.

[roadman65]

The NTSB has recently gotten many bridge owners to examine their structures including the Walt Whitman Bridge in Philadelphia.

So hopefully the pressure from them will influence their decision here to build a more suitable structure to deter future stray ships from making contact with the replacement span.

[Beltway]

Obviously, building a tunnel at that location would be a nonstarter, especially since I-95 was not going to get the bridge as originally planned because of aesthetic concerns, so this was a viable tradeoff. And a no-build alternative is not going to fly either, because the main goal is to make I-695 a complete loop again, which this project will achieve.

That wasn't done as a 'tradeoff' -- the Fort McHenry Tunnel concept was adopted due to aesthetic and historical concerns at the Fort McHenry national monument, as the bridge would have towered over Fort McHenry.

If they are not going to choose a safe and secure design, then the No-Build Alternative is the prudent alternative to choose.

The 12 lanes of current Baltimore cross-harbor Interstate highways (I-95 and I-895) can handle the 225,000 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) that was using the three crossings. There are 8-lane portions of the Capital Beltway that carry that volume.

[The Ghostbuster]

If a tunnel were built to replace the collapsed bridge, there is no way the tunnel could be expanded if traffic needs warranted it (which it probably won't). It's better to build a new bridge to replace the collapsed bridge.

[Beltway]

The NTSB has recently gotten many bridge owners to examine their structures including the Walt Whitman Bridge in Philadelphia.

So hopefully the pressure from them will influence their decision here to build a more suitable structure to deter future stray ships from making contact with the replacement span.

NTSB has a stellar record with investigating transportation accidents, all the way back to the days when it was the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). I have been reading their accident reports since the 1960s.

They are absolutely correct about deep water bridge piers being vulnerable to destruction by the Panamax sized ships of today. The Key Bridge disaster has just brought it to the forefront by an event that has not happened before, at least not in a busy shipping channel that carries these kind of ships.

Their main recommendation is to assess those 68 bridges in a "risk analysis" mode, to determine whether the "risk" for that bridge exceeds a certain "threshold."

I don't know if there is a way to mathematically calculate the probability of a "black swan event."

All those bridges IMHO are at risk of collapse from a vessel collision should it happen.

I have made the point over and over on various internet forums that there is no proven way to protect deep water bridge piers, and that in the future they should not be built in the first place, that 1) either a much longer main span is utilized, or a 2) tunnel is utilized.

[Beltway]

If a tunnel were built to replace the collapsed bridge, there is no way the tunnel could be expanded if traffic needs warranted it (which it probably won't). It's better to build a new bridge to replace the collapsed bridge.

The MDTA proposal has 4 lanes (2 each way) and that width I would agree with. AADT there was 31,000 and has been flat near that figure since 2006, so 4 lanes would be plenty for far into the future.

Plus, tunnels can be expanded the same way as a bridge, by building parallel structures.

The I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel is getting two new 2-lane tunnels and full replacement of the trestles. Expansion from 4 lanes to 8 lanes underway now.

[PColumbus73]

Secondly, there's only a hand full of bridges with a mile-long central span in the world. So, mandating that the bridge must have a mile-long span over the river is unrealistic.

There are nine suspension bridges in the world with a main span of 5,000 feet or longer. The longest is 6,637 feet.

If there is a good reason to build one then that is justification.

There being 9 bridges over 5,000 feet across the entire world speaks to their cost and difficulty to build. The Verrazzano Narrows Bridge isn't even 5,000 feet across at its main span.

It would be easier for the islands that are built up for new bridge piers to be expanded as necessary to stop an errant ship from striking the bridge itself. Or said islands to be equipped with hedgehogs or concrete studs to slow the momentum of an out-of-control vessel.

In lieu of added bridge protections, there should be more burden placed on shippers to keep their vessels maintained properly and to punish them for accidents resulting in operator negligence.

[kphoger]

... there should be more burden placed on shippers to keep their vessels maintained properly and to punish them for accidents resulting in operator negligence.

This sounds a lot like Consumer Reports saying they're calling for 'greater oversight' of something or other in every single issue.  Easy to say, much more difficult to implement.