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

[jeffandnicole]

I've been on this bridge a handful of times, especially before the Fort McHenry Tunnel was finished.  I wonder how many people will use DE 1 and US 301 as a detour.  (Probably not too many before 301 gets perpetually jammed in Southern Maryland.)

I think the people that would use that detour would avoid Baltimore normally anyway.

Yes, but you can be sure more people are going to crowd up those roads now.

For most people, they're just going to continue down 95 as they always have.  Their primary route hasn't changed.

Taking the 1/301 route is about 15 - 20 minutes longer than 95 on a normal day.  For Google to possibly suggest that as a primary alternative, there would need to be delays of 20 minutes or more at 95 or 895 (and in total along the entire route).

It's also going to depend on how many people are going from Northern Delaware to the eastern side of the DC Beltway to continue south.  On most days, it's less than you would expect - most people aren't traveling long distances.

[Henry]

I was 10 when the Sunshine Skyway fell into Tampa Bay. In my mind, this was even worse, and it goes to prove just how shoddy everything from the 1970s truly was. Cable-stayed bridges are all the rage right now, so I expect one to be built as a replacement.

(At least it wasn't the Wilson Bridge on the Capital Beltway, because that would've been just as catastrophic, what with I-95 being a part of that route and the Potomac serving as DC's conduit to the Chesapeake Bay.)

[webny99]

Update: Things are looking rough now that we're well within the afternoon commute, with congestion on I-95 NB, MD 295 NB approaching I-95, I-895 SB, and I-895 NB (including the NB spur coming from I-97 & MD 2). I-695 EB also has congestion from I-97 to MD 10 (the closure point).

For context, both northbound tunnels experience congestion during the typical afternoon commute but this is definitely far worse than usual - in particular I-895 NB, which typically slows down at or near the toll plaza IIRC. I-695 around the west & north sides of Baltimore looks like the typical rush-hour congestion.

Screenshot as of 4:35PM:

I'm curious why the dominant traffic flow seems to be so much heavier going north in the afternoon. With how close the tunnels are to downtown, I would have expected to see roughly equal backups on both sides. Is it due to more commuters traveling to work on the south/west side of the harbor, or are the tunnel lane configurations on the south side more backup prone in general?

[SteveG1988]

I was 10 when the Sunshine Skyway fell into Tampa Bay. In my mind, this was even worse, and it goes to prove just how shoddy everything from the 1970s truly was. Cable-stayed bridges are all the rage right now, so I expect one to be built as a replacement.

(At least it wasn't the Wilson Bridge on the Capital Beltway, because that would've been just as catastrophic, what with I-95 being a part of that route and the Potomac serving as DC's conduit to the Chesapeake Bay.)

I wouldn't say it was a shoddy bridge. Any bridge when struck like that would fall into the water. Concrete with Rebar can't handle certain forces, and this ship hit it in the way it can't handle. The only Shoddy part was the dolphins not being bigger, or closer.

[roadman65]

There's a press report that the ship had experienced power outages while in port. Does anyone have authority to stop an ailing ship from leaving?

Yes, the Harbor Pilot.



He was actually running the ship at the time. He was the one who called in the mayday. You could hear the ship alarms going off when he did.

Under MD law only a pilot can navigate through port areas. The Captain must step aside and let the pilot command the vessel into and out of port.

[cl94]

...perhaps at the Federal level too for other bridges across the country.

TBQH, I'm kinda surprised similar wasn't implemented after the Sunshine Skyway collapse, given that the cause of that collapse was similar. Not to get too political,of course, but I wouldn't be too surprised if Reagan taking power the following year caused any proposals there may have been at the time to get squashed...

In 2024, a bridge of that size over a navigable waterway would require a collision prevention system per federal requirements. No idea when it went in, but it is required now. Some existing crossings have been retrofitted, but holy crap that's expensive. They're retrofitting the Delaware Memorial Bridge right now, and that's costing close to $100 million for 8 "dolphins". I have no idea how deep the Patapsco is in this area, but if it's sufficiently deep and soil conditions are garbage, that makes cost increase astronomically.

Will there be a new push to retrofit existing structures? Probably. Though again, cost. If each bridge is going to run 7, 8, or even 9 figures to protect, that is a crazy amount of money for bridges that may be nearing the end of their useful lives in some cases.

[roadman65]

How long would it have been if this disaster didn't happen where this bridge would have been replaced anyway? It's 47 years old. I'm sure the state would have replaced this bridge anyway sometime in the next decade and made all the adjustments.

[ixnay]

Having dealt with the 35W collapse 17 years ago, I can only imagine how the traffic will be on 95 and 895 while they rebuild the Key Bridge. That was a nightmare in Minneapolis/St Paul on 35E and on 94/280 to get from south to north.

Somewhere I read that the bridge carried only 31,000 vehicles per day. I doubt that the overall traffic impacts will be severe, though it'll be a sizable inconvenience for hazmat trucks. 

MDOT SHA Traffic Volume for 2022 was 33,195 vpd

The Traffic Count Locations in the Baltimore Region linked to from the city of Baltimore site shows the same vpd statistic and AADT point by the toll plaza location.

The Maryland Annual Average Daily Traffic - Annual Average Daily Traffic (SHA Statewide AADT Lines) application has data only as recently as 2019, when the AADT was 40,365 vpd. That appears to be an outlier, as counts from 2010-18 ranged from 29,346 to 32,343 vpd.

To the bolded, weren't they rehabilitating the 895 tunnels at the time, closing one tube and two-waying the other tube?  That may have convinced some folks to take the FSK.  Or maybe they were rehabbing one of the 95 tubes.

[jmacswimmer]

Having dealt with the 35W collapse 17 years ago, I can only imagine how the traffic will be on 95 and 895 while they rebuild the Key Bridge. That was a nightmare in Minneapolis/St Paul on 35E and on 94/280 to get from south to north.

Somewhere I read that the bridge carried only 31,000 vehicles per day. I doubt that the overall traffic impacts will be severe, though it'll be a sizable inconvenience for hazmat trucks. 

MDOT SHA Traffic Volume for 2022 was 33,195 vpd

The Traffic Count Locations in the Baltimore Region linked to from the city of Baltimore site shows the same vpd statistic and AADT point by the toll plaza location.

The Maryland Annual Average Daily Traffic - Annual Average Daily Traffic (SHA Statewide AADT Lines) application has data only as recently as 2019, when the AADT was 40,365 vpd. That appears to be an outlier, as counts from 2010-18 ranged from 29,346 to 32,343 vpd.

To the bolded, weren't they rehabilitating the 895 tunnels at the time, closing one tube and two-waying the other tube?  That may have convinced some folks to take the FSK.  Or maybe they were rehabbing one of the 95 tubes.

Yes - that was the main year of the Canton Viaduct replacement project (and then they also rehabbed the tunnels since they already had 1 lane closed each way for the duration of the viaduct project). The Fort McHenry Tunnel volumes were also higher than normal that year (140,185 compared to high 110's-low 120's most other years) while the Harbor Tunnel volumes were about 2/3 (47,480 compared to high 70's other years).

[1995hoo]

I was looking at Scott Kozel's article about the bridge and I noted the photo below. This is the vantage point from which I've always thought of that bridge, though I can't say I quite remember ever seeing the MD-695 shield (he says this photo was from April 1978, so about a month or so before I turned five years old). I definitely remember the two-lane road segments on either side of the bridge, though, especially the north side. Anyway, looking at this picture after watching the news coverage yesterday makes me realize why I thought the TV images made the bridge look a lot longer than I've always thought of it as being. When you see it at this particular angle, I think the overall structure looks a lot steeper and the truss structure looks considerably shorter than it does when you see it from the side like on the news reports. But the only times I'd seen it from the side were from a considerable distance, such as on a visit to Fort McHenry.

[WillWeaverRVA]

I was looking at Scott Kozel's article about the bridge and I noted the photo below. This is the vantage point from which I've always thought of that bridge, though I can't say I quite remember ever seeing the MD-695 shield (he says this photo was from April 1978, so about a month or so before I turned five years old). I definitely remember the two-lane road segments on either side of the bridge, though, especially the north side. Anyway, looking at this picture after watching the news coverage yesterday makes me realize why I thought the TV images made the bridge look a lot longer than I've always thought of it as being. When you see it at this particular angle, I think the overall structure looks a lot steeper and the truss structure looks considerably shorter than it does when you see it from the side like on the news reports. But the only times I'd seen it from the side were from a considerable distance, such as on a visit to Fort McHenry.

I had no idea MD 695 was ever signed as such. I thought it was always signed as I-695.

[bwana39]

There are three options for replacement.

Rebuild the missing section. If the approaches are still viable, they could rebuild just the section that was destroyed. This would be less than ideal, but could be done faster and at a lower cost.

Demolish the existing bridge and replace in the same location. This would be the slowest of the options.

Build a new bridge facility adjacent to it.  This COULD expedite the process, but environmental clearance might make this slower than demo and replace faster.

There are outside possibilities of building at a totally different location, building tunnels, or  not replacing it at all.

At 30-35K ADT it is not going to be as pushed up as much as some other locations might be. Baltimore and the state of Maryland are going to push it as an emergency and get it done in the shortest time frame feasible. The biggest issue is going to be the loss of the ability to transit HC and permitted loads.

This discussion should ramp up today or tomorrow as we are past the rescue window.

[hobsini2]

Update: Things are looking rough now that we're well within the afternoon commute, with congestion on I-95 NB, MD 295 NB approaching I-95, I-895 SB, and I-895 NB (including the NB spur coming from I-97 & MD 2). I-695 EB also has congestion from I-97 to MD 10 (the closure point).

For context, both northbound tunnels experience congestion during the typical afternoon commute but this is definitely far worse than usual - in particular I-895 NB, which typically slows down at or near the toll plaza IIRC. I-695 around the west & north sides of Baltimore looks like the typical rush-hour congestion.

Screenshot as of 4:35PM:

I'm curious why the dominant traffic flow seems to be so much heavier going north in the afternoon. With how close the tunnels are to downtown, I would have expected to see roughly equal backups on both sides. Is it due to more commuters traveling to work on the south/west side of the harbor, or are the tunnel lane configurations on the south side more backup prone in general?

My guess is that northbound is the heavy traffic in the afternoon because of BWI Airport's location and DC is not that far from Baltimore that it could be a reasonable commute while being cheaper to live in Maryland.

[Joe The Dragon]

maybe they should have the return (loop around) toll discount before all ez-pass users and not just Maryland ones or will they change the ramp config at broening highway

[Joe The Dragon]

There are three options for replacement.

Rebuild the missing section. If the approaches are still viable, they could rebuild just the section that was destroyed. This would be less than ideal, but could be done faster and at a lower cost.

Demolish the existing bridge and replace in the same location. This would be the slowest of the options.

Build a new bridge facility adjacent to it.  This COULD expedite the process, but environmental clearance might make this slower than demo and replace faster.

There are outside possibilities of building at a totally different location, building tunnels, or  not replacing it at all.

At 30-35K ADT it is not going to be as pushed up as much as some other locations might be. Baltimore and the state of Maryland are going to push it as an emergency and get it done in the shortest time frame feasible. The biggest issue is going to be the loss of the ability to transit HC and permitted loads.

This discussion should ramp up today or tomorrow as we are past the rescue window.

they may need to build it higher to make room for bigger ships as well.

[WillWeaverRVA]

maybe they should have the return (loop around) toll discount before all ez-pass users and not just Maryland ones or will they change the ramp config at broening highway

More than likely they'll leave the current configuration as is - all southbound/westbound traffic currently has to exit at MD 157. There probably won't be any access to I-695 at Broening Hwy at all.

[1995hoo]

I notice Google Maps has generic oval "695" markers along Broening Highway from the beltway as far as the pin for the Dundalk Marine Terminal. Is that accurate? I thought MD-695 was the hidden designation for the eastern side of the Baltimore Beltway.

Edited to add: Never mind, I see Wikipedia says that road is MD-695A, so it's probably just a case of Google not distinguishing.

[RobbieL2415]

There are three options for replacement.

Rebuild the missing section. If the approaches are still viable, they could rebuild just the section that was destroyed. This would be less than ideal, but could be done faster and at a lower cost.

Demolish the existing bridge and replace in the same location. This would be the slowest of the options.

Build a new bridge facility adjacent to it.  This COULD expedite the process, but environmental clearance might make this slower than demo and replace faster.

There are outside possibilities of building at a totally different location, building tunnels, or  not replacing it at all.

At 30-35K ADT it is not going to be as pushed up as much as some other locations might be. Baltimore and the state of Maryland are going to push it as an emergency and get it done in the shortest time frame feasible. The biggest issue is going to be the loss of the ability to transit HC and permitted loads.

This discussion should ramp up today or tomorrow as we are past the rescue window.

They could also rebuild the span as-is on a "fast-track" program, then work on twinning it over the next 5 years so that both directions have full shoulders.

[longhorn]

I was looking at Scott Kozel's article about the bridge and I noted the photo below. This is the vantage point from which I've always thought of that bridge, though I can't say I quite remember ever seeing the MD-695 shield (he says this photo was from April 1978, so about a month or so before I turned five years old). I definitely remember the two-lane road segments on either side of the bridge, though, especially the north side. Anyway, looking at this picture after watching the news coverage yesterday makes me realize why I thought the TV images made the bridge look a lot longer than I've always thought of it as being. When you see it at this particular angle, I think the overall structure looks a lot steeper and the truss structure looks considerably shorter than it does when you see it from the side like on the news reports. But the only times I'd seen it from the side were from a considerable distance, such as on a visit to Fort McHenry.

Odd how the road bends to the right, was this bridge built adjacent to an older one? The only reason I see for the bend. Most likely with a bunch of Fed dollars, MD will build a newer and wider bridge with bike lanes of course ( all the rage).

[DJStephens]

The argument could be made that the Key bridge never should have gotten the I designation.  It was built, with out shoulders, after the 1967 requirement that new construction on the I system required them.   Rahn approved the much more recent US 301 Nice structure without shoulders, nor a seperate bike lane.  Both should have been on the US 301  structure, as well as on any replacement to the Key bridge.   

[WillWeaverRVA]

The argument could be made that the Key bridge never should have gotten the I designation.  It was built, with out shoulders, after the 1967 requirement that new construction on the I system required them.   Rahn approved the much more recent US 301 Nice structure without shoulders, nor a seperate bike lane.  Both should have been on the US 301  structure, as well as on any replacement to the Key bridge.   

It never did get an interstate designation. It was officially MD 695, but signed as I-695 for continuity purposes.

[davewiecking]

I was looking at Scott Kozel's article about the bridge and I noted the photo below. This is the vantage point from which I've always thought of that bridge, though I can't say I quite remember ever seeing the MD-695 shield (he says this photo was from April 1978, so about a month or so before I turned five years old). I definitely remember the two-lane road segments on either side of the bridge, though, especially the north side. Anyway, looking at this picture after watching the news coverage yesterday makes me realize why I thought the TV images made the bridge look a lot longer than I've always thought of it as being. When you see it at this particular angle, I think the overall structure looks a lot steeper and the truss structure looks considerably shorter than it does when you see it from the side like on the news reports. But the only times I'd seen it from the side were from a considerable distance, such as on a visit to Fort McHenry.

Odd how the road bends to the right, was this bridge built adjacent to an older one? The only reason I see for the bend. Most likely with a bunch of Fed dollars, MD will build a newer and wider bridge with bike lanes of course ( all the rage).

Not sure, but I imagine the bend has to do with bridges being required to be perpendicular to the shipping channel.

[1995hoo]

I think the camera distorts the amount of the curve, too. While of course the Google imagery is much newer and is on a dual-carriageway, it seems like both the Street View and the satellite pictures show a far more gradual curve than what you see in the photo above. Maybe the photo above was taken with a wide-angle lens. Or perhaps when they upgraded the road they relocated it and reduced the curve.

[Joe The Dragon]

There are three options for replacement.

Rebuild the missing section. If the approaches are still viable, they could rebuild just the section that was destroyed. This would be less than ideal, but could be done faster and at a lower cost.

Demolish the existing bridge and replace in the same location. This would be the slowest of the options.

Build a new bridge facility adjacent to it.  This COULD expedite the process, but environmental clearance might make this slower than demo and replace faster.

There are outside possibilities of building at a totally different location, building tunnels, or  not replacing it at all.

At 30-35K ADT it is not going to be as pushed up as much as some other locations might be. Baltimore and the state of Maryland are going to push it as an emergency and get it done in the shortest time frame feasible. The biggest issue is going to be the loss of the ability to transit HC and permitted loads.

This discussion should ramp up today or tomorrow as we are past the rescue window.

They could also rebuild the span as-is on a "fast-track" program, then work on twinning it over the next 5 years so that both directions have full shoulders.

The Approachs may need to redone to fit an new Bridge

[jmacswimmer]

My thought on the replacement is that you might as well go ahead and redo the whole thing now so that you can future-proof for the new generation of massive cargo & cruise ships - primarily higher vertical clearance, maybe the 2 center piers spaced further apart to allow for a wider shipping channel and/or added horizontal clearance, and of course pier dolphins. With bridge clearance concerns popping up at other ports (the Bayonne Bridge & Talmadge Bridge are the first 2 to come to mind), I think it makes sense to just demolish the remainder of the old bridge & fully rebuild to modern standards.

The other thing that came to mind today is the impact this could have on the I-895 toll plaza removal project - this is the last remaining toll plaza in Maryland (currently operating "AET-in-place" similar to the PA Turnpike) and, compared to the other toll plaza removals, will be a larger design-build project due to the need to reconfigure exits 8 & 9 immediately on either side of the plaza. It just secured some federal funding in January and was scheduled to be advertised later this year, but now I wonder if MDTA would want to hold off so as not to begin construction while I-895 is carrying excess traffic from the Key Bridge. We shall see.

MDTA's landing page for anyone interested in that project: https://mdta.maryland.gov/I895TollPlaza