https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/26/us/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-tuesday/index.html
https://wtop.com/baltimore/2024/03/key-bridge-in-baltimore-collapses-after-hitting-large-boat/
https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1772514786338619487
The boat that hit it is The Dali & is out of Singapore.
Sadly, we have another Skyway Bridge upon us, and this looks way worse. :(
Could have been worse, being hit at 1:30 AM saved countless lives.
HOLY MOLY
:-o :-o :banghead:
Traffic around the west side seems to be good according to the Google Maps traffic layer. It also seems like the southeast portion of I-695 is closed until December.
My prayers go out to those involved in this.
Quote from: longhorn on March 26, 2024, 11:14:49 AMCould have been worse, being hit at 1:30 AM saved countless lives.
Ship also sent a mayday, allowing police to shut the bridge before the impact, saving a few more cars from being up there
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/baltimore-bridge-collapse-key-bridge-video/60304085
Unbelievable.
The bridge collapse is featured on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2176593,-76.5275612,652m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu.
The video of the collapse is horrifying...you can see the vessel's lights going on & off and smoke billowing as it approaches (in line with Gov. Moore's statement that they declared a mayday due to power loss), then drifts off course directly towards the support column, and then the entire structure was down in seconds upon impact (and you can even see the power cut out on the bridge itself as it starts to collapse).
Most recent updates I've seen indicate that 5 vehicles have been identified on the river bottom via sonar (but not reached yet by the divers), and an 8-person construction crew was on the bridge at collapse with 2 rescued earlier and the remaining 6 unaccounted for. The other major impact is that the Port of Baltimore is now cut off entirely.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/baltimore-bridge-collapse-03-26-24-intl-hnk/index.html
And we just hit the 1st anniversary of the work-zone crash on I-695 a few days ago...March is not a good month for Maryland transportation.
VMS on I-795 on my commute in this morning:
(https://i.imgur.com/3U4WLAO.jpeg)
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 26, 2024, 04:09:30 AMSadly, we have another Skyway Bridge upon us, and this looks way worse. :(
IIRC, the Skyway Bridge replacement was designed to make the cause of its collapse (as apparently the case here, an out-of-control ship colliding with a bridge support) less likely, including in particular larger islands around the supports. Were similar changes made to the Key Bridge? Would they have been possible, while keeping the navigation channel under the main span wide enough for large container ships?
There are at least two cruise ships at sea that originated out of the Baltimore Cruise Port. Royal Caribbean's Vision of the Seas is currently on a 12-night itinerary that is due back the morning of April 4th. RC's blog says "our Port Logistics team is currently working on alternatives for our ongoing and upcoming sailings. We will message our guests and travel partners directly once our plans are finalized." Carnival also has ongoing sailings from that Port.
I saw a bright light on the Dundalk approach to the main span as that part went down plus an explosion over where the Dundalk main pier used to stand.
Part of the structure remains on the bow of the ship
openstreetmap.org has it removed now
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 26, 2024, 12:33:07 PMopenstreetmap.org has it removed now
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/39.2152/-76.5324
I was surprised that there was no better pier protection around the piers.
I am glad that I stopped for photos two years ago.
(https://i0.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210729-DJI_0444-Edit.jpg?w=1200)
Quote from: oscar on March 26, 2024, 11:52:56 AMQuote from: rickmastfan67 on March 26, 2024, 04:09:30 AMSadly, we have another Skyway Bridge upon us, and this looks way worse. :(
IIRC, the Skyway Bridge replacement was designed to make the cause of its collapse (as apparently the case here, an out-of-control ship colliding with a bridge support) less likely, including in particular larger islands around the supports. Were similar changes made to the Key Bridge? Would they have been possible, while keeping the navigation channel under the main span wide enough for large container ships?
No, there were no dolphins (well technically there are 2 next to each foundation, but very far away, which in the case of what happened with this ship didn't help as it swung around) or fenders around the piers, which is very interesting because of how exposed those supports were.
Now if the federal government picks up the full rebuild costs will the tolls be removed?
Will the federal government stop some 3rd party from funding an rebuild with an big toll hike?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 26, 2024, 12:54:07 PMNow if the federal government picks up the full rebuild costs will the tolls be removed?
Will the federal government stop some 3rd party from funding an rebuild with an big toll hike?
They rarely will pay 100% of a rebuild.
And toll revenue is still used for maintenance on other parts of the jurisdiction the entity us responsible for; not just the bridge itself.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 26, 2024, 12:54:07 PMNow if the federal government picks up the full rebuild costs will the tolls be removed?
Will the federal government stop some 3rd party from funding an rebuild with an big toll hike?
Ship insurance would be another factor. And lawyers making a lot of billable hours on the subject...
Quote from: longhorn on March 26, 2024, 11:14:49 AMCould have been worse, being hit at 1:30 AM saved countless lives.
If you've seen the way that thing collapsed, it would be hard to disagree with you.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2024, 01:13:27 PMQuote from: Joe The Dragon on March 26, 2024, 12:54:07 PMNow if the federal government picks up the full rebuild costs will the tolls be removed?
Will the federal government stop some 3rd party from funding an rebuild with an big toll hike?
They rarely will pay 100% of a rebuild.
And toll revenue is still used for maintenance on other parts of the jurisdiction the entity us responsible for; not just the bridge itself.
I see Biden did say the Feds will pay for the rebuild though. That'll be nice of them to do so.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2024, 01:13:27 PMQuote from: Joe The Dragon on March 26, 2024, 12:54:07 PMNow if the federal government picks up the full rebuild costs will the tolls be removed?
Will the federal government stop some 3rd party from funding an rebuild with an big toll hike?
They rarely will pay 100% of a rebuild.
And toll revenue is still used for maintenance on other parts of the jurisdiction the entity us responsible for; not just the bridge itself.
Even though it's not even a drop in the bucket for the collapse, I now want to personally take the $6 they were supposed to have charged me for crossing directly to the Maryland Transportation Authority.
Curious if they'll try and reuse the old bridge approaches (doubtful) or just create a new Cable Stayed Bridge like the Sunshine Skyway disaster ended up doing.
On the Oregon coast, the McCullough Bridge (101 just north of North Bend) was hit by a ship in the 80's. The bridge did not collapse so we got lucky but the bridge was closed for several weeks so inspections and repairs could take place. A local bumpersticker was made which said "The Ship Hit The Span!". The real headache was that the detour was for the most part a narrow curvy two lane road with a 35 MPH limit that came into the south end of the urban area here.
Quote from: nexus73 on March 26, 2024, 01:25:46 PMOn the Oregon coast, the McCullough Bridge (101 just north of North Bend) was hit by a ship in the 80's. The bridge did not collapse so we got lucky but the bridge was closed for several weeks so inspections and repairs could take place. A local bumpersticker was made which said "The Ship Hit The Span!". The real headache was that the detour was for the most part a narrow curvy two lane road with a 35 MPH limit that came into the south end of the urban area here.
The San Francisco Bay Bridge was also hit by one in 2007 but it just hit the pier support and didn't damage anything, and spilled a ton of junk into the bay. I'm curious why the Bay Bridge tower wasn't damaged at all when it doesn't have a fender either.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Container-ship-hits-Bay-Bridge-tower-fuel-3236913.php
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2024, 01:13:27 PMQuote from: Joe The Dragon on March 26, 2024, 12:54:07 PMNow if the federal government picks up the full rebuild costs will the tolls be removed?
Will the federal government stop some 3rd party from funding an rebuild with an big toll hike?
They rarely will pay 100% of a rebuild.
And toll revenue is still used for maintenance on other parts of the jurisdiction the entity us responsible for; not just the bridge itself.
FWIW: In this case, MDTA's jurisdiction extends from within I-695 exit 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2069875,-76.6059416,3a,22.3y,313.25h,87.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCOMYiwUnuMsJ5pg0KZ0wtA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) to
just north of I-695 exit 42 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2493444,-76.4551499,3a,75y,345.98h,81.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMi0jc0vYc_KtWxEKGK3xsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) (I think it's the pavement transition but can't immediately find the little white maintenance signs like exist at the exit 2 MDTA/SHA switchover).
Updated to add: Found it, it's actually partway between exits 42 & 43 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.24304,-76.458514,3a,44.8y,257.16h,88.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shp6VCNxu02y0XJzD-SYOIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu). This includes the Curtis Creek Drawbridge, the eastbound span of which is currently also closed by default due to the outer loop closure beginning at exit 2, as well as the Bear Creek Bridge which is also fully closed by default.
I've rewatched the clip so many times and still can't fathom this. An area landmark gone in seconds. Massive implications.
Why aren't the bridge piers protected with concrete blocks in front like the Sunshine Skyway is in Florida?
That's now 4 interstate bridges forced to close unexpectedly in the last year.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 02:36:38 PMWhy aren't the bridge piers protected with concrete blocks in front like the Sunshine Skyway is in Florida?
It didn't always.
https://www.fox13news.com/news/sunshine-skyway-bridge-francis-scott-key-baltimore-tampa-st-pete-florida-pinellas-hillsborough-collapse-boat-freighter
This is unreal, I woke up this morning, saw the video of the bridge collapse on TV from my local NBC station in Nashville, TN but had no mention of where it was but thought it looked familiar, I get on FB and first thing I see is "prayers for Baltimore, the Key Bridge is down!" from my Uncle, I yelled OMG and surprised I did not wake up my wife. :-( I first crossed this bridge in 1992 as the last piece of I-695 I needed to clinch it. Going to be interesting to see what the outcome is in terms of a new bridge.
Quote from: Hunty2022 on March 26, 2024, 11:19:40 AMTraffic around the west side seems to be good according to the Google Maps traffic layer. It also seems like the southeast portion of I-695 is closed until December.
A quick peek earlier during the morning commute showed significant congestion on both I-95 SB & I-895 SB approaching their respective tunnels, and as of this post just prior to 3PM I-895 at the Harbor Tunnel (which will probably be more impacted throughout this than the Fort McHenry Tunnel due to both capacity & location) is looking congested in both directions prior to peak afternoon commute.
Quote from: seicer on March 26, 2024, 12:41:26 PMI am glad that I stopped for photos two years ago.
(https://i0.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20210729-DJI_0444-Edit.jpg?w=1200)
Looks like my most recent photos of the bridge are from 2022, but my last 2 views of the bridge were from roughly here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B011'27.8%22N+76%C2%B028'16.2%22W/@39.2248154,-76.4557112,16281m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d39.191064!4d-76.471161!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) in the air while on approach to BWI about a week ago, and then this nice vantage point (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2687794,-76.633973,3a,15.9y,123.56h,89.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPhXhZWxM7K_6lI2VFpHPhg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DPhXhZWxM7K_6lI2VFpHPhg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D38.29695%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) from the top of the I-95 exit 52 ramp to Russell St just yesterday afternoon. Hindsight being 20/20, wish I'd taken photos of both.
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.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 03:00:00 PMHaving 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.
Through traffic, especially trucks with any hazmat, may opt to use the Annapolis Bay Bridge instead of doing anything through the immediate Baltimore area.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kdX14u1Q1CoZ1FsX7
I see that they used I-695 enhanced mileposts despite it officially being MD 695.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Hn7QQXu22hEV5nxV6
This speed limit sign is about the extent of the collapse goes on the City side as that sign is seen in photos of the approachway dropping off now due to the bridge being gone.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 03:17:16 PMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/kdX14u1Q1CoZ1FsX7
I see that they used I-695 enhanced mileposts despite it officially being MD 695.
For consistency.
When you watch the video, it almost looks as if the other half of the bridge would have stayed except for the pier connections at the end of the truss, the force sheared that end off the support after the original collision and instead of breaking in half it went down with it (the Bay Bridge after Loma Prieta had a similar earthquake generated shear that took that whole section down inside of the pier support at the last truss).
This was sad news to wake up to. Though it has been over two decades since my last visit to Maryland, I drove across the Key Bridge several times while the segment of the Baltimore Beltway immediately to the east still had an undivided two-lane cross-section.
As for what happens now, the most urgent priority will be clearing the wreckage so that the Dundalk freight terminal can resume handling shipping traffic. Its closure is expected to have ripple effects on supply chains globally. Getting the pieces of the bridge out of the way safely will be a major engineering challenge in and of itself--the jagged edges of the torn steelwork have already created difficult and hazardous conditions for rescue divers.
I think there is next to no chance that the bridge will be rebuilt as it was, as such fracture-critical designs are now deprecated. Nor do I expect it to be replaced by a tunnel, as this would preclude dredging out the shipping channel. (In Houston, the Fred Hartman Bridge replaced the Baytown Tunnel specifically to allow the channel to be deepened.) I expect a cable-stayed bridge with enhanced pier protection, though I don't know how feasible it will be to expand the envelope for navigation.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2024, 03:44:26 PMThis was sad news to wake up to. Though it has been over two decades since my last visit to Maryland, I drove across the Key Bridge several times while the segment of the Baltimore Beltway immediately to the east still had an undivided two-lane cross-section.
As for what happens now, the most urgent priority will be clearing the wreckage so that the Dundalk freight terminal can resume handling shipping traffic. Its closure is expected to have ripple effects on supply chains globally. Getting the pieces of the bridge out of the way safely will be a major engineering challenge in and of itself--the jagged edges of the torn steelwork have already created difficult and hazardous conditions for rescue divers.
I think there is next to no chance that the bridge will be rebuilt as it was, as such fracture-critical designs are now deprecated. Nor do I expect it to be replaced by a tunnel, as this would preclude dredging out the shipping channel. (In Houston, the Fred Hartman Bridge replaced the Baytown Tunnel specifically to allow the channel to be deepened.) I expect a cable-stayed bridge with enhanced pier protection, though I don't know how feasible it will be to expand the envelope for navigation.
The primary purpose of the bridge was to divert hazmat vehicles that could not use the tunnel(s). I agree you will see another bridge built here. The question is how long it will take. My guess is years. This is not like the bridge collapse in Philly, which was over a road and could be temporarily filled.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 03:00:00 PMHaving 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.
Comparing to the I-35W and the Sunshine Skyway collapse, seems like it would be between 2025-2028 before a new Key Bridge opens.
While we're thinking about replacing the Key Bridge, I hope Maryland looks into adding protections to the Bay Bridge as well, perhaps at the Federal level too for other bridges across the country.
Imagine if this happened during rush hour with cars backed up and no warning!
The person in charge of the bridge had about 90 seconds warning and stopped traffic from entering.
Glad the forum is back up in time to discuss this. History repeating itself, just like others have said. If they had webcams in the 80's that's what the old Sunshine Skyway would have looked like coming down.
The other thing that pops into my head is how much larger container ships are today compared to when the bridge was constructed. Lot more mass that needs to be deflected in a scenario like this.
Dumb luck this happened in the middle of the night instead of during morning commute time. Thank goodness for that.
I imagine the port is going to be closed for several weeks until they can complete searches for victims and clear a path for ships.
Just, wow.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 03:00:00 PMHaving 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.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 26, 2024, 02:57:42 PMQuote from: Hunty2022 on March 26, 2024, 11:19:40 AMTraffic around the west side seems to be good according to the Google Maps traffic layer. It also seems like the southeast portion of I-695 is closed until December.
A quick peek earlier during the morning commute showed significant congestion on both I-95 SB & I-895 SB approaching their respective tunnels, and as of this post just prior to 3PM I-895 at the Harbor Tunnel (which will probably be more impacted throughout this than the Fort McHenry Tunnel due to both capacity & location) is looking congested in both directions prior to peak afternoon commute.
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/3y0EqgO.jpeg)
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2024, 03:44:26 PMThis was sad news to wake up to. Though it has been over two decades since my last visit to Maryland, I drove across the Key Bridge several times while the segment of the Baltimore Beltway immediately to the east still had an undivided two-lane cross-section.
I had never driven across the Key Bridge, but I traveled under it many times on that cruise ship I mentioned earlier. It was always a bit of a novelty to be up on the top deck of the ship as we passed under. We certainly weren't clearing it with mere inches to spare, but still it always seemed like we were pretty close to it.
That bridge may have been a reason -- maybe THE reason -- that newer, taller cruise ships have never come to Baltimore. It will be interesting to see if the new bridge will have an increased clearance, and if so what effect that might have on the types of ship traffic.
Quote from: Tom958 on March 26, 2024, 04:39:23 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 03:00:00 PMHaving 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 (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/Traffic_Volume_Maps/Baltimore.pdf) was 33,195 vpd
The Traffic Count Locations in the Baltimore Region linked to from the city of Baltimore site (https://www.baltometro.org/transportation/data-maps/traffic-count-database) 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 (https://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/3f4b959826c34480be3e4740e4ee025f_1/explore?location=39.213754%2C-76.526604%2C15.56) 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.
Been over that bridge many times and actually remember how things were before it was constructed (and when the Harbor Tunnel was the ONLY way through Baltimore on a freeway). Have since visited the area many times on business and one of my favorite (and most scenic) places to stop and have a nice cigar is the Fort Armisted park which overlooks the Key Bridge and river. Beautiful spot. So yes, this was a shock to see destroyed on video - in like 2 seconds.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 26, 2024, 04:43:22 PMQuote from: jmacswimmer on March 26, 2024, 02:57:42 PMQuote from: Hunty2022 on March 26, 2024, 11:19:40 AMTraffic around the west side seems to be good according to the Google Maps traffic layer. It also seems like the southeast portion of I-695 is closed until December.
A quick peek earlier during the morning commute showed significant congestion on both I-95 SB & I-895 SB approaching their respective tunnels, and as of this post just prior to 3PM I-895 at the Harbor Tunnel (which will probably be more impacted throughout this than the Fort McHenry Tunnel due to both capacity & location) is looking congested in both directions prior to peak afternoon commute.
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/3y0EqgO.jpeg)
The truck routing has to either go down to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge or above Baltimore now right? The tunnel restriction I'm guessing hasn't been lifted for Hazmat trucks.
Quote from: MASTERNC on March 26, 2024, 03:50:26 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2024, 03:44:26 PMThis was sad news to wake up to. Though it has been over two decades since my last visit to Maryland, I drove across the Key Bridge several times while the segment of the Baltimore Beltway immediately to the east still had an undivided two-lane cross-section.
As for what happens now, the most urgent priority will be clearing the wreckage so that the Dundalk freight terminal can resume handling shipping traffic. Its closure is expected to have ripple effects on supply chains globally. Getting the pieces of the bridge out of the way safely will be a major engineering challenge in and of itself--the jagged edges of the torn steelwork have already created difficult and hazardous conditions for rescue divers.
I think there is next to no chance that the bridge will be rebuilt as it was, as such fracture-critical designs are now deprecated. Nor do I expect it to be replaced by a tunnel, as this would preclude dredging out the shipping channel. (In Houston, the Fred Hartman Bridge replaced the Baytown Tunnel specifically to allow the channel to be deepened.) I expect a cable-stayed bridge with enhanced pier protection, though I don't know how feasible it will be to expand the envelope for navigation.
The primary purpose of the bridge was to divert hazmat vehicles that could not use the tunnel(s). I agree you will see another bridge built here. The question is how long it will take. My guess is years. This is not like the bridge collapse in Philly, which was over a road and could be temporarily filled.
In addition to these factors, one would think a few other things would come into play. First, a tunnel was apparently considered back in the late 1960s/early 1970s but rejected when the bids came in higher than expected such that a tunnel was deemed too expensive. If it was too expensive 50 years ago, imagine how much more expensive it would be now. Second, how long would the tunnel have to be to allow for sufficiently gentle gradients for heavy trucks? (I don't know.)
I do think the US government will make funding it a priority, especially given the current circumstances—incumbent Democrat president, heavily Democrat-voting state, presidential election year.... I believe I saw something saying Biden has already committed to funding it, though of course that doesn't guarantee Congress will cooperate, much less what might happen if the other guy wins.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on March 26, 2024, 05:05:32 PMBeen over that bridge many times and actually remember how things were before it was constructed (and when the Harbor Tunnel was the ONLY way through Baltimore on a freeway). Have since visited the area many times on business and one of my favorite (and most scenic) places to stop and have a nice cigar is the Fort Armisted park which overlooks the Key Bridge and river. Beautiful spot. So yes, this was a shock to see destroyed on video - in like 2 seconds.
When I was a kid, we used the bridge quite frequently on family trips because of how bad the Harbor Tunnel traffic was. My mother absolutely hated that bridge, though, and I remember the time she was driving because my father wasn't with us. I told her to take the bridge and she said she hated it. We promptly got stuck in traffic on the Harbor Tunnel Thruway; it took an hour to go five miles.
I also remember using it fairly frequently on Boy Scout trips because of the restrictions on carrying bottled gas through the tunnels. It wasn't totally clear whether liquid camp stove fuel and the like counted, so we just went around.
I hadn't been over the bridge since 2006. The last time I drove in that direction, I went over the Bay Bridge so as to explore the new US-301 in Delaware (and because I was just bored with the I-95 corridor after years of going that way). I guess when the replacement opens, it'll give me a reason to drive through the Baltimore area again.
Quote from: Voyager on March 26, 2024, 05:11:59 PMThe truck routing has to either go down to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge or above Baltimore now right? The tunnel restriction I'm guessing hasn't been lifted for Hazmat trucks.
I would think the most likely route would be to go around I-695 the other way (what I always think of as "695 West," as opposed to "695 East" over the bridge).
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.)
Quote from: elsmere241 on March 26, 2024, 05:17:37 PMI'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.
(Love the new design of the forum).
My heart breaks for those affected I've been on the bridge a couple of times. It was a nice drive, but I would never use 695 east from I-97 as an Eastern bypass around Baltimore - too long. But then again, I can use either the Harbor Tunnel or the McHenry Tunnel. I'm not a hazmat truck. I imagine those trucks will need to use Baltimore surface streets, 695 from Catonsville thru to Whitemarsh, or the Bay Bridge. None of which seem like an ideal option.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 26, 2024, 03:55:02 PM...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...
Quote from: epzik8 on March 26, 2024, 02:28:15 PMI've rewatched the clip so many times and still can't fathom this. An area landmark gone in seconds. Massive implications.
It is truly hard to believe that the video is real. It happened in seconds but also feels like slow motion domino effect when watching it. The five seconds between impact and when the bridge starts to collapse are painstaking.
Horrifying to listen to in real time
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1772564974965035349
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 26, 2024, 05:38:23 PMQuote from: elsmere241 on March 26, 2024, 05:17:37 PMI'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.
I was thinking about the tunnel issue while I was out fur a walk. It seems to me that the depth is a non-issue because any ships accessing the Port of Baltimore also have to clear the tunnels at the mouth of the Chesapeake as part of the bridge-tunnel. Those two tunnels are essentially a limiting factor. So in principle, tunneling under the Patapsco wouldn't be an issue in that respect, though it poses financial issues and the issue of how long it would have to be.
Quote from: webny99 on March 26, 2024, 06:12:42 PMQuote from: epzik8 on March 26, 2024, 02:28:15 PMI've rewatched the clip so many times and still can't fathom this. An area landmark gone in seconds. Massive implications.
It is truly hard to believe that the video is real. It happened in seconds but also feels like slow motion domino effect when watching it. The five seconds between impact and when the bridge starts to collapse are painstaking.
Yeah, and it was a bit similar to the I-35W St. Anthony Falls bridge collapse back in 2007.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzixH0N96Fc
I typically drive through or around Baltimore a few times a year. My route is most often US 301 now but I've done the tunnels and the Key Bridge many times as well. On the most recent trip SB, some time in 2023, I took the Key Bridge in part because we hadn't in a while. The Key Bridge was also always one of the landmarks I looked for when taking off from or landing at BWI. I'll be flying through Baltimore a week from today. I am not sure if I want to get a view of the wreckage or not.
I cannot believe the bridge collapsed. I was hoping to drive there one day. I will bet that they will build a new bridge similar to either the Sunshine Skyway or perhaps the twinned Goethals Bridge, but it will not have the same feeling as the old one. :(
Just announced by the Coast Guard live from the site that the search-and-rescue is officially suspended and transitioning to recovery - the 6 unaccounted construction workers are now presumed dead.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/us/live-news/baltimore-bridge-collapse-03-26-24-intl-hnk/index.html
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 26, 2024, 07:32:43 PMJust announced by the Coast Guard live from the site that the search-and-rescue is officially suspended and transitioning to recovery - the 6 unaccounted construction workers are now presumed dead.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/us/live-news/baltimore-bridge-collapse-03-26-24-intl-hnk/index.html
Oof sorry to hear this and this is Maryland's biggest bridge didaster.
It could have sailed further and experienced troubles down the bay and hit the Annapolis Bay Bridge instead which would be much worse.
A least the Key Bridge has closer alternates to circumvent. The Bay Bridge has no other crossings across the Chesapeake to use at all.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 07:52:02 PMIt could have sailed further and experienced troubles down the bay and hit the Annapolis Bay Bridge instead which would be much worse.
A least the Key Bridge has closer alternates to circumvent. The Bay Bridge has no other crossings across the Chesapeake to use at all.
If it had been the Bay Bridge, I would hope that a ship wouldn't be able to take out both bridges. And speaking of the Bay Bridge, it doesn't look like either one has any kind of protection against a ship strike.
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?
Quote from: wdcrft63 on March 26, 2024, 07:58:22 PMThere'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?
I know nothing of the laws of the seas and shipping, but that sounds like something that is part of the US Coast Guard's charge. But just like state highway cops and even DOT/commercial division highway cops on the freeway, the USCG can't screen every shipping vessel in a US port for sea-worthiness
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 26, 2024, 07:57:53 PMQuote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 07:52:02 PMIt could have sailed further and experienced troubles down the bay and hit the Annapolis Bay Bridge instead which would be much worse.
A least the Key Bridge has closer alternates to circumvent. The Bay Bridge has no other crossings across the Chesapeake to use at all.
If it had been the Bay Bridge, I would hope that a ship wouldn't be able to take out both bridges. And speaking of the Bay Bridge, it doesn't look like either one has any kind of protection against a ship strike.
Bay Bridge doesn't have heavy harbor traffic.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 26, 2024, 07:57:53 PMQuote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 07:52:02 PMIt could have sailed further and experienced troubles down the bay and hit the Annapolis Bay Bridge instead which would be much worse.
A least the Key Bridge has closer alternates to circumvent. The Bay Bridge has no other crossings across the Chesapeake to use at all.
If it had been the Bay Bridge, I would hope that a ship wouldn't be able to take out both bridges. And speaking of the Bay Bridge, it doesn't look like either one has any kind of protection against a ship strike.
Although I'd imagine this would prompt a search into that.
Quote from: Voyager on March 26, 2024, 01:24:44 PMCurious if they'll try and reuse the old bridge approaches (doubtful) or just create a new Cable Stayed Bridge like the Sunshine Skyway disaster ended up doing.
Right. This day and era it's practical to just rebuild than reuse. Look at McDonalds and Wendy's replacing stores rather than remodel. It will be cable stayed no doubt as steel arches are now with bell bottoms .
Quote from: Rothman on March 26, 2024, 09:00:30 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 26, 2024, 07:57:53 PMQuote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 07:52:02 PMIt could have sailed further and experienced troubles down the bay and hit the Annapolis Bay Bridge instead which would be much worse.
A least the Key Bridge has closer alternates to circumvent. The Bay Bridge has no other crossings across the Chesapeake to use at all.
If it had been the Bay Bridge, I would hope that a ship wouldn't be able to take out both bridges. And speaking of the Bay Bridge, it doesn't look like either one has any kind of protection against a ship strike.
Bay Bridge doesn't have heavy harbor traffic.
Interesting. It somehow never occurred to me that Baltimore port traffic would use the C&D canal.
I was pretty shocked to wake up this morning to news of Key Bridge collapsing. The video is pretty horrifying. I drove across the Key Bridge a few times in the 1980's and early 1990's when I lived in Northern Virginia and New York City. I guess having been on the bridge before makes the video even more scary.
Are there any regulations about protection for bridge piers in navigable ship channels? The supports for this bridge were pretty much just "naked" to any sort of ship collision. There were no foundation structures extending outward from the bridge piers. There were no independent guide structures, dolphins or jetties built around the bridge piers. Funny thing: the electrical transmission lines running just North of the Key Bridge had protective structures built around their support pylons.
I thought it was normal for high rise bridges to have some sorts of protective safeguards built around them. I lived near the Verrazano Narrows Bridge for 4 years and was used to seeing the rock jetties (or whatever they're called) built around the base of the piers. I imagine one purpose of the rock structures was to protect against soil erosion, but they also could help deflect a direct strike from a ship.
Anyway, I imagine a cable stay bridge will replace the old bridge. There probably isn't nearly enough traffic to justify building a twin span structure like a few other major cable stay bridges that have been built recently. Hopefully the new bridge will at least up traffic capacity to 3 lanes in each direction.
Quote from: webny99 on March 26, 2024, 09:43:28 PMQuote from: Rothman on March 26, 2024, 09:00:30 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 26, 2024, 07:57:53 PMQuote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 07:52:02 PMIt could have sailed further and experienced troubles down the bay and hit the Annapolis Bay Bridge instead which would be much worse.
A least the Key Bridge has closer alternates to circumvent. The Bay Bridge has no other crossings across the Chesapeake to use at all.
If it had been the Bay Bridge, I would hope that a ship wouldn't be able to take out both bridges. And speaking of the Bay Bridge, it doesn't look like either one has any kind of protection against a ship strike.
Bay Bridge doesn't have heavy harbor traffic.
Interesting. It somehow never occurred to me that Baltimore port traffic would use the C&D canal.
Same here. To me I would assume the Dali is too wide for that particular Chanel. Although all five road bridges over the canal have their piers on dry land, so an accident like this wouldn't be prominent. However, the railroad lift bridge in Delaware could be problematic for a vessel like this losing power though as its structure is close to the shipping lane.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 26, 2024, 07:57:53 PMQuote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 07:52:02 PMIt could have sailed further and experienced troubles down the bay and hit the Annapolis Bay Bridge instead which would be much worse.
A least the Key Bridge has closer alternates to circumvent. The Bay Bridge has no other crossings across the Chesapeake to use at all.
If it had been the Bay Bridge, I would hope that a ship wouldn't be able to take out both bridges. And speaking of the Bay Bridge, it doesn't look like either one has any kind of protection against a ship strike.
The Maryland MTA had better fix that.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on March 26, 2024, 07:58:22 PMThere'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?
That was while they were in port? I thought it was while they were departing. My assumption was that once they were having those power outages, they had lost control of the ship. Even if it was at port, where were they going to get a spare ship on a moments notice?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 10:19:31 PMQuote from: webny99 on March 26, 2024, 09:43:28 PMQuote from: Rothman on March 26, 2024, 09:00:30 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 26, 2024, 07:57:53 PMQuote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2024, 07:52:02 PMIt could have sailed further and experienced troubles down the bay and hit the Annapolis Bay Bridge instead which would be much worse.
A least the Key Bridge has closer alternates to circumvent. The Bay Bridge has no other crossings across the Chesapeake to use at all.
If it had been the Bay Bridge, I would hope that a ship wouldn't be able to take out both bridges. And speaking of the Bay Bridge, it doesn't look like either one has any kind of protection against a ship strike.
Bay Bridge doesn't have heavy harbor traffic.
Interesting. It somehow never occurred to me that Baltimore port traffic would use the C&D canal.
Same here. To me I would assume the Dali is too wide for that particular Chanel. Although all five road bridges over the canal have their piers on dry land, so an accident like this wouldn't be prominent. However, the railroad lift bridge in Delaware could be problematic for a vessel like this losing power though as its structure is close to the shipping lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9920138,-76.3769764,3a,15y,199.04h,87.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soe-887sJUk8nQ6zIumfgxA!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Streetview has several ships near the Bay Bridge, suggests to me that the Chesapeake would be the preferred route for cargo into Baltimore.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on March 26, 2024, 07:58:22 PMThere'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.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 26, 2024, 06:42:00 PMQuote from: 74/171FAN on March 26, 2024, 05:38:23 PMQuote from: elsmere241 on March 26, 2024, 05:17:37 PMI'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.
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.)
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 26, 2024, 04:43:22 PMUpdate: 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:
(https://i.imgur.com/3y0EqgO.jpeg)
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?
Quote from: Henry on March 26, 2024, 10:54:48 PMI 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.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 27, 2024, 01:51:47 AMQuote from: edwaleni on March 26, 2024, 10:49:11 PMQuote from: wdcrft63 on March 26, 2024, 07:58:22 PMThere'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.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on March 26, 2024, 06:04:45 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 26, 2024, 03:55:02 PM...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.
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.
Quote from: Alex on March 26, 2024, 04:55:35 PMQuote from: Tom958 on March 26, 2024, 04:39:23 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 03:00:00 PMHaving 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 (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/Traffic_Volume_Maps/Baltimore.pdf) was 33,195 vpd
The Traffic Count Locations in the Baltimore Region linked to from the city of Baltimore site (https://www.baltometro.org/transportation/data-maps/traffic-count-database) 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 (https://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/3f4b959826c34480be3e4740e4ee025f_1/explore?location=39.213754%2C-76.526604%2C15.56) 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.
Quote from: ixnay on March 27, 2024, 07:14:01 AMQuote from: Alex on March 26, 2024, 04:55:35 PMQuote from: Tom958 on March 26, 2024, 04:39:23 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 03:00:00 PMHaving 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 (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/Traffic_Volume_Maps/Baltimore.pdf) was 33,195 vpd
The Traffic Count Locations in the Baltimore Region linked to from the city of Baltimore site (https://www.baltometro.org/transportation/data-maps/traffic-count-database) 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 (https://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/3f4b959826c34480be3e4740e4ee025f_1/explore?location=39.213754%2C-76.526604%2C15.56) 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).
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FKey_Bridge_NB.jpg&hash=4f8ceeceec88f71324d371b0e80359bf510dc436)
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2024, 08:23:01 AMI 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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FKey_Bridge_NB.jpg&hash=4f8ceeceec88f71324d371b0e80359bf510dc436)
I had no idea MD 695 was ever signed as such. I thought it was always signed as I-695.
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.
Quote from: webny99 on March 26, 2024, 11:45:23 PMQuote from: jmacswimmer on March 26, 2024, 04:43:22 PMUpdate: 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:
(https://i.imgur.com/3y0EqgO.jpeg)
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.
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
Quote from: bwana39 on March 27, 2024, 08:46:34 AMThere 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.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 27, 2024, 09:03:21 AMmaybe 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.
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on March 27, 2024, 08:46:34 AMThere 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.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2024, 08:23:01 AMI 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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FKey_Bridge_NB.jpg&hash=4f8ceeceec88f71324d371b0e80359bf510dc436)
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).
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.
Quote from: DJStephens on March 27, 2024, 10:07:59 AMThe 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.
Quote from: longhorn on March 27, 2024, 09:59:43 AMQuote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2024, 08:23:01 AMI 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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FKey_Bridge_NB.jpg&hash=4f8ceeceec88f71324d371b0e80359bf510dc436)
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.
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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 27, 2024, 09:51:12 AMQuote from: bwana39 on March 27, 2024, 08:46:34 AMThere 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
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
There has been discussion in the Facebook road-related groups about the possibility of replacing the bridge with a tunnel (which was the original plan back in 1972) and simply having the northern part of I-695 be the permanent hazmat detour. I do not expect to see that happen because of all the constructability issues that would involve, which recently led to the Spanish abandoning a similar plan to carry the SE-40 beltway under the Guadalquivir just south of Seville. However, Scott Kozel (who is no longer active on this forum) mentioned that draft in the Chesapeake Bay estuary is already constrained to 45 feet by other tunnels that have to be traversed to reach open ocean. Therefore, one of the key arguments against carrying I-695 under the Patapsco--that it would preclude dredging to deepen the navigational channel--would seem not to apply.
Quote from: cl94 on March 27, 2024, 02:10:27 AMIn 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.
I expect that the NTSB investigation will surface some recommendations for achieving a higher standard of layered defense against vessel collisions in a cost-effective manner. The fact that the Dali lost power multiple times as it approached the bridge suggests that it was not seaworthy and should not have been allowed to sail even with a qualified harbor pilot in charge. Shipping is an international business, which complicates imposition of more stringent safety standards, but maritime insurers can bring pressure to bear.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 27, 2024, 03:16:56 PMI expect that the NTSB investigation will surface some recommendations for achieving a higher standard of layered defense against vessel collisions in a cost-effective manner. The fact that the Dali lost power multiple times as it approached the bridge suggests that it was not seaworthy and should not have been allowed to sail even with a qualified harbor pilot in charge. Shipping is an international business, which complicates imposition of more stringent safety standards, but maritime insurers can bring pressure to bear.
Apparently the
Dali lost power several times
while it was docked in port (https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-03-27-24/h_e3a9e04d4e0d2a4a8457dc5a4b1dd9ff) at the Virginia International Gateway in Portsmouth. It should never have been allowed to set sail, but apparently sea traffic is not as thoroughly regulated as air traffic is.
Of course, the ship itself is stuck in place because the weight of the bridge has pushed it into the seafloor.
We have to wonder how many (few) vessels the actual owner of the ship has. It would not surprise me if the owner just abandons the ship and the (shell) company that owns it. My bet is that Maersk has very limited liability for the OPERATION of the vessel and the freight is not attachable.
Most if not all of this is probably going to land on the people who own the bridge (the State of Maryland and the US taxpayers). Hopefully not!
The ship now is actually considered evidence in an investigation. It may not even soon be released after it's removed but get impounded by the NTSB until the investigation is over. The bridge itself will be removed to another makeshift site as well until they look at all the pieces to see how it fell apart to determine that structural failure wasn't a factor even though highly unlikely.
From the video, it sure looks like it lost power and then they dropped the anchor with the diesel engine backups. The anchor took hold, but that's what swung it into the bridge.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 27, 2024, 04:57:20 PMFrom the video, it sure looks like it lost power and then they dropped the anchor with the diesel engine backups. The anchor took hold, but that's what swung it into the bridge.
That maybe why it appears to have changed course at the end. If you look at the vid it appears that the hit was deliberate. Dropping the anchor does make sense in turning a ships facing. With the angle of photography it gets distorted some.
That's why I'm not jumping the gun to point a finger like some social media buffs are.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 27, 2024, 05:03:14 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on March 27, 2024, 04:57:20 PMFrom the video, it sure looks like it lost power and then they dropped the anchor with the diesel engine backups. The anchor took hold, but that's what swung it into the bridge.
That maybe why it appears to have changed course at the end. If you look at the vid it appears that the hit was deliberate. Dropping the anchor does make sense in turning a ships facing. With the angle of photography it gets distorted some.
That's why I'm not jumping the gun to point a finger like some social media buffs are.
Tough to call it deliberate when you can clearly see it losing power and it had its siren ringing too.
Two thoughts on replacing the bridge.
1- The FSKey Bridge had a vertical clearance of 185 ft. Recently built bridges over international channels have clearances over 200 ft. Turkey's bridges over the Bosporus have a 210 ft clearance and the Gordie Howe Bridge at Detroit will have a 220 ft clearance. However it wouldn't help to have a higher clearance if ships have to pass under the 186 ft clearance of the Bay Bridge.
2- As a truss bridge the FSKey Bridge had a rather short main span of 1200 ft. A cable stayed bridge could easily have a longer span. It could then have its piers in shallower water where huge ships could not hit them; they would run aground first.
Road Guy Rob does a segment on the Francis Scott Key Bridge and the aftermath of the ship crash.
I assume the replacement bridge will be cable-stayed since it'll allow for a longer main span that's wider than that of the old bridge's main span.
The new bridge will probably look a lot like Florida's Skyway bridge and the US 17 Arthur Ravenel Jr Bridge at Charleston, SC.
Catching up on Gov. Moore's 5:30 press conference:
-2 bodies were found in a submerged pickup truck earlier today.
-Divers have searched everywhere safe to do so and have not located the remaining 4, so they are almost certainly somewhere within the mess of submerged twisted steel that is unsafe to search within. This means the mission is shifting from recovery to salvage moving forward.
-Once debris clearing begins, it sounds like the first priority will be removing the steel resting on the ship's bow, which is currently pressing it into the river bottom (as was noted upthread). Then the ship can be refloated and moved out of the way, presumably back to the port or somewhere else nearby as the investigation progresses.
-The construction company noted they had 7 employees on the bridge rather than the 8 initially reported, with the 8th person (the one who was rescued and refused treatment) being an inspector contracted by MDTA.
-I haven't seen this nugget included in any official reporting, but did see a rumor somewhere that the 1 construction employee who survived had apparently told officials that his remaining colleagues were in their vehicles on break at the time of collapse.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-03-27-24/index.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/baltimore-francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-live-updates-b2519665.html
This ship crashing into the Francis Scott Key Bridge reminds me of the freight barge that crashed into a bridge on the Interstate 40 bridge over the Arkansas River in Webber Falls, Oklahoma in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster. It also reminds me of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis in 2007, although that bridge collapsed under different circumstances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge. There are plenty of other bridge collapses one can point to as parallels to what just happened in Baltimore.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 27, 2024, 06:52:54 PMThis ship crashing into the Francis Scott Key Bridge reminds me of the freight barge that crashed into a bridge on the Interstate 40 bridge over the Arkansas River in Webber Falls, Oklahoma in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster. It also reminds me of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis in 2007, although that bridge collapsed under different circumstances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge. There are plenty of other bridge collapses one can point to as parallels to what just happened in Baltimore.
The I-40 bridge strike back in '02 was a worse tragedy. More casualties and severed a major transcontinental interstate with a much worse detour through a 2 lane US-64 through tiny towns until the bridge was rebuilt, which happened in record time due to the urgency of the situation. Really did a number on US-64 with all that truck traffic compressing it. Stopped shipping on the MKARNS as well until they got the bridge deck fished out of the channel. Smaller bridge, but oh so critical to the IHS.
R.I.P. Jimmy, Misty, and Shea Johnson. Jimmy used to be my fishing buddy back in high school when he was dating Misty. Good folks taken far too early.
The Key bridge will take a while longer to demolish and reconstruct(?), though, due to it's size and the body of water it traverses.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 27, 2024, 02:02:52 PMMy 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
Maryland is lucky they finished the Canton Viaduct and the FMT AET/toll plaza removal before this happened. Can you imagine how much worse things would be if both were still in place? I imagine if cash collection hadn't gone away that it would be suspended temporarily again to keep traffic moving.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on March 27, 2024, 06:32:46 PMTwo thoughts on replacing the bridge.
1- The FSKey Bridge had a vertical clearance of 185 ft. Recently built bridges over international channels have clearances over 200 ft. Turkey's bridges over the Bosporus have a 210 ft clearance and the Gordie Howe Bridge at Detroit will have a 220 ft clearance. However it wouldn't help to have a higher clearance if ships have to pass under the 186 ft clearance of the Bay Bridge.
2- As a truss bridge the FSKey Bridge had a rather short main span of 1200 ft. A cable stayed bridge could easily have a longer span. It could then have its piers in shallower water where huge ships could not hit them; they would run aground first.
There are certainly opportunities for expanding the navigational envelope with a cable-stayed bridge. I wouldn't necessarily rule out a vertical clearance of 200 ft or more for ships, since the Bay Bridge may well be replaced at some point.
The new Key Bridge will need to span approximately 5200 ft of water. Per Wikipedia's list of longest cable-stayed bridges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_cable-stayed_bridge_spans), the current record-holder for main span length is the Russky Bridge near Vladivostok at 1104 m (3622 ft).
One engineering question that needs to be answered is the depth of water at which a vessel with the tonnage of the Dali can be expected to run aground instead of carving its own channel, possibly inflicting structural damage on a pier before it stops.
According to the latest nautical chart (https://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/pdfs/12281.pdf) from NOAA, Baltimore Harbor has a navigational channel with a nominal depth of 50 ft that runs essentially from one main pier of the Key Bridge to the other. If a hypothetical cable-stayed replacement had a main span of 3600 ft centered on that of the former bridge, the ends would be in water 23 ft deep at the north and 19 ft at the south. I don't know if this would afford sufficient margin to intercept an errant container ship. Given that the Chesapeake Bay has a deep muddy floor, it may also be an awkward location for pushing the envelope in terms of span length. It may well be more cost-effective to trade space between the main piers for enhanced protection with structural dolphins, artificial islands, and so on.
As it happens, the Sunshine Skyway has a main span length of about 1200 ft--approximately the same as the old Key Bridge--but, as it is now over 35 years old, its defenses may not offer all that much protection from today's container ships. The Mullet Point navigational channel, which runs underneath the main span, also has a nominal depth of only 43 ft.
Discussion of the liability for this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/heres-could-responsible-paying-baltimore-015844872.html
Protective barriers around bridges were a stroke of genius, and the new Sunshine Skyway is proof of that. As for the ship that struck the bridge, whoever let it out into the harbor really is a dick, and should be fired. Even the drivers of the ship knew that it was not going to make it very far, and they made the right call with their mayday call. And it truly was a miracle that no traffic was crossing the bridge this time, thanks to the swift actions of the authorities.
I would have to suspect that they will lean heavily towards the replacement being larger and taller to accommodate the growth of the port. If you have to build a new one, might as well future-proof by going taller and wider. You'd have to suspect that once the new one is up (lets assume 200-220 ft clearance) the push to replace the Annapolis Bay Bridges will escalate. Given that those two are 72 and 51 years old respectively, their replacement would be coming within the next decade or so you would think. And at that point, it would be silly to build a new 50-75 year replacement of the Key and not have it be prepared for future freight needs.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 27, 2024, 06:52:13 PM-Once debris clearing begins, it sounds like the first priority will be removing the steel resting on the ship's bow, which is currently pressing it into the river bottom (as was noted upthread). Then the ship can be refloated and moved out of the way, presumably back to the port or somewhere else nearby as the investigation progresses.
Update from USACE this morning on the debris clearing priorities, which differs from my previous understanding:
QuoteMore than 1,000 US Army Corps of Engineers personnel were activated to help clear the critical shipping channel where Baltimore's Key Bridge collapsed.
Lt. Gen. Scott Spellmon, commander and chief of engineers, explained the team will approach the mission in three steps. Here's what they are:
Step 1: Get the steel truss out of a 700-foot-wide by 50-foot-deep channel, and examine what parts of the concrete are still at the bottom. "Any piece of concrete, any piece of steel on the bottom is just as much as of a hazard as that in the channel," Spellmon said. This step will allow "one-way traffic going in and out of the Port of Baltimore again," he said.
Step 2: Work closely with the Coast Guard to stabilize containers on top of the ship. Then the truss of the bridge that is still on top of the ship needs to be taken off "so it can be tugged to a safe part of the port," Spellmon said. "By removing the vessel, that will allow us to reopen two-way traffic."
Step 3: Take out the remaining 2,900 feet of steel and all the associated concrete and roadway that's at the river bottom.
"We're up to this task. We have what we need," Spellmon said.
(From CNN's continuous coverage page: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-03-28-24/index.html)
So, how much is this going to cost to fix? Hundreds of millions or billions?
Quote from: kernals12 on March 28, 2024, 09:35:17 AMSo, how much is this going to cost to fix? Hundreds of millions or billions?
Whatever the initial estimate is, the final cost will almost certainly be higher. I have to assume close to a billion. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge project—a much smaller and lower bridge overall—came in at $2.36 billion, although I suppose I should acknowledge that included substantial interchange work for a couple of miles to either side that the Key Bridge project won't need. I also don't know whether the Wilson Bridge figure includes Fifth Amendment compensation for the apartment building that was demolished.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2024, 09:51:43 AMQuote from: kernals12 on March 28, 2024, 09:35:17 AMSo, how much is this going to cost to fix? Hundreds of millions or billions?
Whatever the initial estimate is, the final cost will almost certainly be higher. I have to assume close to a billion. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge project—a much smaller and lower bridge overall—came in at $2.36 billion, although I suppose I should acknowledge that included substantial interchange work for a couple of miles to either side that the Key Bridge project won't need. I also don't know whether the Wilson Bridge figure includes Fifth Amendment compensation for the apartment building that was demolished.
I've seen different figures for the construction cost of the original bridge, including one that equates to $316 million in today's dollars. However, I do not expect the original design to be reused, because it is fracture-critical and does not afford any opportunities for enhancing pier protection without impinging on the navigational channel. (Per the nautical chart for Baltimore Harbor, the channel underneath the Key Bridge extends all the way from one pier to the other. At the Sunshine Skyway, the dolphins and the artificial islands around the piers are all out of the channel.)
In terms of current projects, the Houston Ship Channel Bridge replacement ($1.3 billion) and the New Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge (almost $1 billion) are probably the closest comparators. However, both have had to undergo major design changes midway through construction, and each will carry more lanes of traffic than the Key Bridge. With no increase in capacity and an uncomplicated course through design and construction, a cable-stayed replacement
might leave us change from a billion dollars--but I wouldn't bet on it.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 28, 2024, 09:35:17 AMSo, how much is this going to cost to fix? Hundreds of millions or billions?
It would never be under a billion in
this economy...
Quote from: epzik8 on March 28, 2024, 03:40:48 PMQuote from: kernals12 on March 28, 2024, 09:35:17 AMSo, how much is this going to cost to fix? Hundreds of millions or billions?
It would never be under a billion in this economy...
I don't even know what that means.
When you consider the cost of materials and labor alone, it is difficult to imagine a bridge of this size being completed for less than a billion dollars. Design rules, environmental rules, and construction best practices have all evolved since the original structure was built. I would expect closer to $2BB by the time construction is finished. It is difficult to understate just how quickly costs can balloon over time, especially if design revisions and change orders become necessary.
Physical barrier protection around pylons isn't the only option to prevent strikes, is it? They could also require tugboat entry/exit for all ships.
Quote from: jdbx on March 28, 2024, 04:09:18 PMWhen you consider the cost of materials and labor alone, it is difficult to imagine a bridge of this size being completed for less than a billion dollars. Design rules, environmental rules, and construction best practices have all evolved since the original structure was built. I would expect closer to $2BB by the time construction is finished. It is difficult to understate just how quickly costs can balloon over time, especially if design revisions and change orders become necessary.
It's almost certain that environmental exemptions/ fast tracks and a more or less blank check will be granted by the MD legislator and Congress, similar to the I-35W bridge in 2007. But it's an election year, so...
My bet is $5-6B.
The bridge will also need to be redesigned due to the lack of redundant structural integrity, which is the reason it went down so quickly.
The bigger question than cost is how long a replacement would take. My guess is years. In that case, does anything need to be done to address traffic issues? Maybe MDSHA can fast track the Beltway project with the shoulder riding and ramp meters? I'm guessing projects like the I-70 interchange may be delayed to avoid adding more congestion
Quote from: Rothman on March 28, 2024, 04:52:43 PMMy bet is $5-6B.
I read that as $5-68 . . . which seemed to lowball the cost by a fair bit.
The Cuomo Bridge was built suprisingly fast once they had design approval. I'd expect a similar or even quicker schedule for this one.
Quote from: kphoger on March 28, 2024, 05:12:15 PMQuote from: Rothman on March 28, 2024, 04:52:43 PMMy bet is $5-6B.
I read that as $5-68 . . . which seemed to lowball the cost by a fair bit.
It's also quite the range percentage-wise.
The Stan Musial Bridge on I-70 in St. Louis is a 4-lane cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 1500 ft. According Wikipedia it cost $695 million. Ten years ago.
Heading south on I-95 right now, crossing I-695. Very strange knowing we're so close to the site of international news story... The VMS messages are all clear about the closure but the regular signage hasn't been patched or anything yet. We're late enough today that it looks like both tunnels are free and clear.
Quote from: Jim on March 28, 2024, 09:07:24 PMHeading south on I-95 right now, crossing I-695. Very strange knowing we're so close to the site of international news story... The VMS messages are all clear about the closure but the regular signage hasn't been patched or anything yet. We're late enough today that it looks like both tunnels are free and clear.
Don't think they would have been able to fab patches this fast to be honest. Probably by the weekend more 'permanent' signage fixes might be ready, if not sometime next week.
The more I look back on the Francis Scott Key Bridge and Sunshine Skyway disasters, the more I feel that truss bridges are the most fragile kind out there. I did some research on the Sunshine Skyway, and came up with this nugget of information:
QuoteSoon after the disaster, the undamaged northbound span was converted back to a two-lane, two-way bridge while the state of Florida considered proposals for a replacement. Ideas included the construction of a tunnel (which was deemed impractical due to Florida's high water table) and a simple reconstruction of the broken section of the old bridge, which would not widen the narrow shipping lane. Governor Bob Graham's idea to build a "signature" cable-stayed bridge with a span that would be 50% wider than that of the old Skyway Bridge won out over other proposals. In addition to a wider shipping lane, the channel would be marked by a 1⁄4 mi (400 m)-long series of large concrete barriers, and the support piers would be protected by massive concrete "dolphins".
Construction began in January 1983 with the pounding of pilings for the foundation, and work on the main piers began the following September. The complicated project was delayed several times by bad weather and various difficulties in construction, and the planned opening was pushed back several times. Finally, the opening ceremony was set for April 30, 1987. However, on April 29 at about 3:30 p.m., the new bridge's protective bumpers were hit head-on by the Deliverance, a 74-foot (23 m) shrimp boat. The bumper sustained minor damage and the bridge was not affected, but the vessel took on water and was towed out of the channel into shallow waters, where it promptly sank. The opening ceremonies proceeded as scheduled.
Because the Francis Scott Key Bridge was the only above-water crossing in the immediate area, Baltimore is way more screwed than St. Petersburg ever was. Judging by the above quote, we could see a cable-stayed Key Bridge by 2032, and that's being cautiously optimistic. Also, since the central span's collapse created two severed sections, I'd expect the remainder to be demolished first, and new approach roads constructed that would lead to the new bridge's location. They'd probably build it to the north, although it would be even closer to the transmission lines than the old bridge was, so the exact alignment will remain to be seen.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 28, 2024, 10:01:31 PMQuote from: Jim on March 28, 2024, 09:07:24 PMHeading south on I-95 right now, crossing I-695. Very strange knowing we're so close to the site of international news story... The VMS messages are all clear about the closure but the regular signage hasn't been patched or anything yet. We're late enough today that it looks like both tunnels are free and clear.
Don't think they would have been able to fab patches this fast to be honest. Probably by the weekend more 'permanent' signage fixes might be ready, if not sometime next week.
Another way would be to simply cover up the signs with a black tarp, which can be removed once the replacement bridge opens. For now, I-695 will just become another "Highway to Nowhere", as there's no way across the river on it (although the two tunnels are more than capable of taking on the extra traffic).
There's good reason why trusses are totally avoided nowadays. One member fails, the bridge goes down.
I recently posted in a thread somewhere about the issue with gusset plates and possible future asinine decisions by my state's historical preservation office to require them over even gussetless trusses.
Quote from: Rothman on March 29, 2024, 07:39:03 AMThere's good reason why trusses are totally avoided nowadays. One member fails, the bridge goes down.
I recently posted in a thread somewhere about the issue with gusset plates and possible future asinine decisions by my state's historical preservation office to require them over even gussetless trusses.
It sounded like you were defending it when I mentioned it for the Blackhawk bridge replacement for the IA/WI River crossing.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34519.msg2907220#msg2907220
Quote from: Henry on March 28, 2024, 11:28:27 PMQuote from: rickmastfan67 on March 28, 2024, 10:01:31 PMQuote from: Jim on March 28, 2024, 09:07:24 PMHeading south on I-95 right now, crossing I-695. Very strange knowing we're so close to the site of international news story... The VMS messages are all clear about the closure but the regular signage hasn't been patched or anything yet. We're late enough today that it looks like both tunnels are free and clear.
Don't think they would have been able to fab patches this fast to be honest. Probably by the weekend more 'permanent' signage fixes might be ready, if not sometime next week.
Another way would be to simply cover up the signs with a black tarp, which can be removed once the replacement bridge opens. For now, I-695 will just become another "Highway to Nowhere", as there's no way across the river on it (although the two tunnels are more than capable of taking on the extra traffic).
"Key Bridge" is used as a control city in several locations (I-95 at the SW I-695 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2464081,-76.6858979,3a,75y,57.21h,89.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNagkplLv_ZkBmQ_cTUBpmw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), I-97 at I-695 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1994442,-76.6317289,3a,75y,3.6h,89.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDKVPVXQv6MbfbnYcZcVcWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), I-695 at MD 702 to name a few (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3292832,-76.4849772,3a,75y,150.38h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM2SGCWzN25rEn1iP8g8_yw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu)) so those would be obvious candidates to get greened out - I'll be keeping an eye on that.
Is there any possibility of MDDOT erecting a temporary drawbridge in the meantime? Is that even possible?
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 29, 2024, 08:39:08 AM"Key Bridge" is used as a control city in several locations (I-95 at the SW I-695 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2464081,-76.6858979,3a,75y,57.21h,89.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNagkplLv_ZkBmQ_cTUBpmw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), I-97 at I-695 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1994442,-76.6317289,3a,75y,3.6h,89.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDKVPVXQv6MbfbnYcZcVcWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), I-695 at MD 702 to name a few (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3292832,-76.4849772,3a,75y,150.38h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM2SGCWzN25rEn1iP8g8_yw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu)) so those would be obvious candidates to get greened out - I'll be keeping an eye on that.
I'd think that an orange overlay reading "Bridge Closed" might be an option.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 29, 2024, 09:41:26 AMIs there any possibility of MDDOT erecting a temporary drawbridge in the meantime? Is that even possible?
Heck no.
Quote from: Big John on March 29, 2024, 08:36:21 AMQuote from: Rothman on March 29, 2024, 07:39:03 AMThere's good reason why trusses are totally avoided nowadays. One member fails, the bridge goes down.
I recently posted in a thread somewhere about the issue with gusset plates and possible future asinine decisions by my state's historical preservation office to require them over even gussetless trusses.
It sounded like you were defending it when I mentioned it for the Blackhawk bridge replacement for the IA/WI River crossing.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34519.msg2907220#msg2907220
Wut. I suppose context matters...
Like I said in that link,
"Gussetless trusses are safer than the old trusses with gusset plates." If DOTs are going to be required to build a truss by other regulatory agencies, then they should be gussetless. Without the external requirement for a truss, DOTs will avoid them altogether for good reason.
Gordie Howe bridge is up to 6.4 B $Cdn, nearly $5B US.
Cite: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/gordie-howe-bridge-delayed-cost-increase/704079/#:~:text=Construction%20on%20the%20span%20will,fallout%20from%20pandemic%2Dinduced%20problems.
Quote from: Rothman on March 29, 2024, 10:39:22 AMQuote from: Big John on March 29, 2024, 08:36:21 AMQuote from: Rothman on March 29, 2024, 07:39:03 AMThere's good reason why trusses are totally avoided nowadays. One member fails, the bridge goes down.
I recently posted in a thread somewhere about the issue with gusset plates and possible future asinine decisions by my state's historical preservation office to require them over even gussetless trusses.
It sounded like you were defending it when I mentioned it for the Blackhawk bridge replacement for the IA/WI River crossing.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34519.msg2907220#msg2907220
Wut. I suppose context matters...
Like I said in that link, "Gussetless trusses are safer than the old trusses with gusset plates." If DOTs are going to be required to build a truss by other regulatory agencies, then they should be gussetless. Without the external requirement for a truss, DOTs will avoid them altogether for good reason.
Wait, how are gussetless trusses safer? The only real difference between the Caltrans sign truss that is allowed to have exit tabs versus the older one that isn't is that the exit-tab one has gusset plates. So I thought that meant that gussets made the truss stronger (so the wind loading wasn't a concern).
Or does the gusset/gussetless distinction have to do with fracture criticality, which doesn't really matter for a sign truss because it will be replaced long before a member failure becomes an issue?
An article from the Associated Press this morning pegs the cost and time of a new bridge at possibly...just $400 million and 18 months, per "experts".
https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-rebuilding-a126a3b732af95e86d1fbef01e9fb487
One comparison used was the I-35W Minneapolis Bridge collapse, which really is a poor comparison other than "they are both bridges".
The time estimates in the article range form that 18 months to 7 years, but headscratchingly no one said the bridge would cost more than $1 Billion to rebuild.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2024, 12:09:12 PMAn article from the Associated Press this morning pegs the cost and time of a new bridge at possibly...just $400 million and 18 months, per "experts".
https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-rebuilding-a126a3b732af95e86d1fbef01e9fb487
One comparison used was the I-35W Minneapolis Bridge collapse, which really is a poor comparison other than "they are both bridges".
The time estimates in the article range form that 18 months to 7 years, but headscratchingly no one said the bridge would cost more than $1 Billion to rebuild.
Meh, just wait for the "If we're going to build it, let's build it right" mentality to sink in.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/baltimore-bridge-disaster-immigrants-died-doing-job-others-do-not-want-do-2024-03-28/
Here is more on the DOT crews that died while assigned to protect the Francis Scott Key Bridge.
Why is there such a spread in cost between the Gordie Howe Bridge (main span length of 853 m, $5 billion) and the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge replacement (main span length of 1001 m, $930 million)? They are both designed to carry six lanes of motor vehicle traffic as well as a bike/pedestrian track.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 29, 2024, 01:26:00 PMWhy is there such a spread in cost between the Gordie Howe Bridge (main span length of 853 m, $5 billion) and the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge replacement (main span length of 1001 m, $930 million)? They are both designed to carry six lanes of motor vehicle traffic as well as a bike/pedestrian track.
Do the Gordie Howe costs include the new interchange with (and rebuild of a portion of) I-75 and the 2 customs stations?
AR 16 in Arkansas had a pair of signature truss bridges across a couple of arms of Greers Ferry Lake. One of them got blown away in a tornado in 1984 and then-AHTD replaced it sadly with a boring conventional bridge. The OG truss bridge still exists across the Narrows at Higden.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on March 28, 2024, 04:55:23 PMThe bridge will also need to be redesigned due to the lack of redundant structural integrity, which is the reason it went down so quickly.
While this bridge lacked redundancy, I believe any bridge that lost a support tower would have fallen just the same.
As to cost, my guess is $1.5Bn + any costs associated with the economic support to offset the bridge loss and any costs directly related to expediting the process.
When I look at other bridges near ports, and when I see the 'islands' around the pylons, I do wonder if they would even really do all that much good if a container ship ran into them.
Whenever they do get around to rebuilding the bridge, and they do end up using another cable-stayed design, do you think they'll try to design something that would evoke the former Key Bridge, or do you think they'll go with something that resembles the Ravenel, Zakim, or the Savannah bridge?
Would the truss arch still be a viable bridge design? Any others that would suit?
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 29, 2024, 05:46:30 PMWhenever they do get around to rebuilding the bridge, and they do end up using another cable-stayed design, do you think they'll try to design something that would evoke the former Key Bridge, or do you think they'll go with something that resembles the Ravenel, Zakim, or the Savannah bridge?
Would the truss arch still be a viable bridge design? Any others that would suit?
I seriously doubt a truss will be used. It'll be some sort of cable-stay.
Mileage Mike did a tour of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in 2021. Note I seen news outlets used parts of this video to give a national audience a perspective on how the bridge looked before it collapsed.
Must have been an early Sunday morning because dang, traffic was light.
Quote from: kphoger on March 29, 2024, 05:36:30 PMWhen I look at other bridges near ports, and when I see the 'islands' around the pylons, I do wonder if they would even really do all that much good if a container ship ran into them.
I am hoping the investigation will yield some clarity on this point. The Sunshine Skyway is well-defended with much larger dolphins than the Key Bridge as well as artificial islands around the piers, but this will have been designed for the ships of 35 years ago as well as a shallower channel (43 ft versus 50).
TxDOT has gone to some trouble to keep the main piers for the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge replacement out of the water altogether. As a result, it will have a main span length of 3285 ft (1001 m), only about 10% shorter than the longest in the world. Unfortunately, this will not be an option for the Key Bridge replacement because the over-water distance that must be covered is around 5200 ft.
Quote from: Rothman on March 29, 2024, 12:42:10 PMMeh, just wait for the "If we're going to build it, let's build it right" mentality to sink in.
Didn't the replacement Crown Point Bridge have to fit within the existing footprint or something like that in order to get the emergency waiver on environmental requirements? If there are similar requirements for the Key Bridge, that would limit what they could do.
Quote from: GaryV on March 29, 2024, 11:04:36 AMGordie Howe bridge is up to 6.4 B $Cdn, nearly $5B US.
Cite: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/gordie-howe-bridge-delayed-cost-increase/704079/#:~:text=Construction%20on%20the%20span%20will,fallout%20from%20pandemic%2Dinduced%20problems.
There's a hell of a lot more to the Gordie Howe than the bridge itself. Two sets of border crossing infrastructure, freeway interchanges, a rebuild of mainline I-75 near the Gordie Howe, community impact mitigation, and so on.
In addition, I imagine that not having to do new environmental impact studies or RoW acquisition (or fight the Morouns in court...) would reduce the cost of this project by a fair amount over the Howe project.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 29, 2024, 05:46:30 PMWhenever they do get around to rebuilding the bridge, and they do end up using another cable-stayed design, do you think they'll try to design something that would evoke the former Key Bridge, or do you think they'll go with something that resembles the Ravenel, Zakim, or the Savannah bridge?
Would the truss arch still be a viable bridge design? Any others that would suit?
I would imagine if they go with an entirely new bridge, the old bridge will have nothing to do with the design. At best, they can give it a name that represents the 6 who perished.
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 29, 2024, 09:29:44 PMQuote from: GaryV on March 29, 2024, 11:04:36 AMGordie Howe bridge is up to 6.4 B $Cdn, nearly $5B US.
Cite: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/gordie-howe-bridge-delayed-cost-increase/704079/#:~:text=Construction%20on%20the%20span%20will,fallout%20from%20pandemic%2Dinduced%20problems.
There's a hell of a lot more to the Gordie Howe than the bridge itself. Two sets of border crossing infrastructure, freeway interchanges, a rebuild of mainline I-75 near the Gordie Howe, community impact mitigation, and so on.
Yes, but it doesn't include the 1.4B Canada already spent for the Right Honourable Herb Gray Parkway project which extended the Hwy 401 by 11 km to the River (eventually to meet I-75), rebuilt major portions of both Hwy 3 and the EC Row expressway as well as made a park out of all it.
https://www.hgparkway.com/
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2024, 09:09:21 PMQuote from: Rothman on March 29, 2024, 12:42:10 PMMeh, just wait for the "If we're going to build it, let's build it right" mentality to sink in.
Didn't the replacement Crown Point Bridge have to fit within the existing footprint or something like that in order to get the emergency waiver on environmental requirements? If there are similar requirements for the Key Bridge, that would limit what they could do.
I don't remember. All I remember about that project is that it would have been a lot cheaper just to move those who used the bridge to one side of it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 29, 2024, 08:42:27 PMTxDOT has gone to some trouble to keep the main piers for the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge replacement out of the water altogether. As a result, it will have a main span length of 3285 ft (1001 m), only about 10% shorter than the longest in the world. Unfortunately, this will not be an option for the Key Bridge replacement because the over-water distance that must be covered is around 5200 ft.
That wouldn't be a problem if they were willing to shell out for a suspension bridge.
Here is part 2 by Mileage Mike on the Francis Scott Key Bridge.
Quote from: bing101 on March 30, 2024, 06:56:28 PMHere is part 2 by Mileage Mike on the Francis Scott Key Bridge.
I really appreciate these videos.
How about a temporary ferry across the gap? Wouldn't that be feasible to handle cross river traffic and commerce?
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 29, 2024, 11:37:49 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on March 29, 2024, 08:42:27 PMTxDOT has gone to some trouble to keep the main piers for the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge replacement out of the water altogether. As a result, it will have a main span length of 3285 ft (1001 m), only about 10% shorter than the longest in the world. Unfortunately, this will not be an option for the Key Bridge replacement because the over-water distance that must be covered is around 5200 ft.
That wouldn't be a problem if they were willing to shell out for a suspension bridge.
Well, you would think that but... for a span to cross it without piers in the water, you will need to tear up everything on either side of the bridge, to do a totally new alignment, since you'd have to start the approaches to the main span farther out.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2024, 09:51:17 AMHow about a temporary ferry across the gap? Wouldn't that be feasible to handle cross river traffic and commerce?
Sounds good in theory, but I imagine that a ferry crossing would still be slower than detouring via the tunnels and wouldn't get much use. Not to mention that once the shipping channel is reopened, these ferries would conflict with cargo & cruise ship traffic.
On an unrelated note, I realized going thru my photos that I unintentionally got a distant photo of the Key Bridge back on New Year's Eve, where it snuck into the background of a photo I took of the I-895 K-Truss bridge shortly before the toll plaza & tunnel. Which would make this my most recent photo of the Key Bridge rather than 2022 as I previously thought.
(https://i.imgur.com/d346E5A.jpeg)
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2024, 09:51:17 AMHow about a temporary ferry across the gap? Wouldn't that be feasible to handle cross river traffic and commerce?
Dear heavens, no. There are no docks for a ferry. There are no readily available ferry ships that can handle the mixed passenger/freight traffic. The volume on I-695 was overwhelming for a ferry. Then, you have the harbor traffic to deal with.
Might have even already been pointed out in this thread, but lots of discussion out there on the Interwebs about this and why it's infeasible for this location.
I would say that a ferry is just not worth doing at all, even if greatly reduced capacity were accepted in exchange for quick setup, simply because three fixed links already exist and the greatest cost in detour time and distance applies only to a narrow category of vehicles (hazmat carriers).
The Crosby-Lynchburg ferry (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7649018,-95.0779672,3a,83.1y,254.75h,84.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfCxh2zkwX-Ky5rmyd3vf3A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DfCxh2zkwX-Ky5rmyd3vf3A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D285.04694%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) in Texas and the Kampsville Ferry (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3003149,-90.6038308,3a,90y,263.23h,84.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sE9-7DRWJ26TJrQ8zoLX4PQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DE9-7DRWJ26TJrQ8zoLX4PQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D67.35629%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664?entry=ttu) in Illinois are both examples of inland waterway ferries with relatively light requirements in terms of craft and docking facilities. However, they both serve relatively lightly travelled two-lane roads. For a freeway with an AADT of over 30,000 VPD, such a low-capacity connection might actually function more as an attractive nuisance. Moreover, compared to Burnet Bay, the body of water the Crosby-Lynchburg ferry crosses, the lower Patapsco estuary is a less sheltered location and thus might be more vulnerable to bad weather.
I was just thinking. Now the control city of Dundalk on I-97 for I-695 EB now needs to be covered up ( removed) and the EB ramp to I-695 at MD 10's northern terminus ( providing they reopen it to the last exit before the bridge) will have to be replaced completely as to sign it for I-695 East without a control point would not be feasible there.
Plus Key Bridge references from I-95 to Dundalk will all have to be greened out as well.
Quote from: Rothman on March 31, 2024, 02:49:28 PMQuote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2024, 09:51:17 AMHow about a temporary ferry across the gap? Wouldn't that be feasible to handle cross river traffic and commerce?
Dear heavens, no. There are no docks for a ferry. There are no readily available ferry ships that can handle the mixed passenger/freight traffic. The volume on I-695 was overwhelming for a ferry. Then, you have the harbor traffic to deal with.
Might have even already been pointed out in this thread, but lots of discussion out there on the Interwebs about this and why it's infeasible for this location.
A more general question... How ferries do deal with hazmat vehicles? Quite a few comments about hazmat implications of this bridge are upthread.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 31, 2024, 05:14:34 PMI would say that a ferry is just not worth doing at all, even if greatly reduced capacity were accepted in exchange for quick setup, simply because three fixed links already exist and the greatest cost in detour time and distance applies only to a narrow category of vehicles (hazmat carriers).
The Crosby-Lynchburg ferry (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7649018,-95.0779672,3a,83.1y,254.75h,84.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfCxh2zkwX-Ky5rmyd3vf3A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DfCxh2zkwX-Ky5rmyd3vf3A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D285.04694%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) in Texas and the Kampsville Ferry (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3003149,-90.6038308,3a,90y,263.23h,84.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sE9-7DRWJ26TJrQ8zoLX4PQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DE9-7DRWJ26TJrQ8zoLX4PQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D67.35629%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664?entry=ttu) in Illinois are both examples of inland waterway ferries with relatively light requirements in terms of craft and docking facilities. However, they both serve relatively lightly travelled two-lane roads. For a freeway with an AADT of over 30,000 VPD, such a low-capacity connection might actually function more as an attractive nuisance. Moreover, compared to Burnet Bay, the body of water the Crosby-Lynchburg ferry crosses, the lower Patapsco estuary is a less sheltered location and thus might be more vulnerable to bad weather.
To use a comparison, the Mackinac Straits Ferry, prior to the building of the Mackinac Bridge, was stressed at a mere 2,700 VPD, necessitating the building of the bridge. And that was with five ferry boats carrying up to 500 vehicles together (average of 100 per ferry). Waits of up to 10 hours during the summer months and deer season (November) were not uncommon. So a series of ferries to carry 30,000 VPD here would be a non-starter.
Quote from: kalvado on March 31, 2024, 08:07:08 PMQuote from: Rothman on March 31, 2024, 02:49:28 PMQuote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2024, 09:51:17 AMHow about a temporary ferry across the gap? Wouldn't that be feasible to handle cross river traffic and commerce?
Dear heavens, no. There are no docks for a ferry. There are no readily available ferry ships that can handle the mixed passenger/freight traffic. The volume on I-695 was overwhelming for a ferry. Then, you have the harbor traffic to deal with.
Might have even already been pointed out in this thread, but lots of discussion out there on the Interwebs about this and why it's infeasible for this location.
A more general question... How ferries do deal with hazmat vehicles? Quite a few comments about hazmat implications of this bridge are upthread.
Depends on the ferry. For Lake Erie ferries (e.g., to Kelleys Island), HAZMATs invoke a HUGE surcharge.
Does the Cape May- Lewes Ferry allow Hazmats or even the Lake Michigan Badger allow them?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2024, 07:19:07 PMI was just thinking. Now the control city of Dundalk on I-97 for I-695 EB now needs to be covered up ( removed) and the EB ramp to I-695 at MD 10's northern terminus ( providing they reopen it to the last exit before the bridge) will have to be replaced completely as to sign it for I-695 East without a control point would not be feasible there.
Plus Key Bridge references from I-95 to Dundalk will all have to be greened out as well.
I traveled the Beltway today and did not observe any temporary greenouts or patching of any of the BGSes or other colored overhead signage on the Outer Loop. I didn't observe any similar changes on I-97 North either. At least one of the VMSes on the Outer Loop south of I-70 were still in alert mode and announcing the closure of the Beltway east of Exit 1, while the VMS north of MD 648 on I-97 North had a closure message displayed only.
I am also curious to know if the highway will need to be re-inventoried, in order to change the zero milepost to a location that still exists and can be safely accessed for maintenance purposes. Have other DOTs re-inventoried highways that were severed by bridge collapses?
Off forum our page has been covering the bridge collapse (mainly on Facebook). There seems to be an insane sect of people who are convinced this was some domestic or foreign act of terrorism. I'm not getting how any reasonable person would come to either of those conclusions.
Also popular on Facebook groups is an inordinate fear over something similar happening another bridge. I'm also scratching my head at that notion given the last instance of a similar domestic incident to the Key Bridge collapse was in 1980 with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 31, 2024, 11:38:28 PMOff forum our page has been covering the bridge collapse (mainly on Facebook). There seems to be an insane sect of people who are convinced this was some domestic or foreign act of terrorism. I'm not getting how any reasonable person would come to either of those conclusions.
Also popular on Facebook groups is an inordinate fear over something similar happening another bridge. I'm also scratching my head at that notion given the last instance of a similar domestic incident to the Key Bridge collapse was in 1980 with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge.
I've gotten the same as well. Some of my fellow religious believers are sending out click bait material saying that it was copied from a movie that Obama produced that he never did. This one person who believes in the conspiracy it was planned said it was some cyber attack that caused the blackout on the boat.
I argued back, but got more click bait.
However, every event gets conspiring theories including 9/11 where some think the World Trade Center wasn't brought down to the ground by the jet fuel but by planned bombs. Then I heard another person theorize that Bush flew Osama Bin Laden's family out of the country the moment the terrorist attack of that fateful day happened.
You get em all from the Kennedy assasinations to the Neil Armstrong Moon Landing.
How about this different but related subject.
https://youtu.be/v-B3j83ozJk?si=uehEePegZfUfNR-Z
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 31, 2024, 11:38:28 PMAlso popular on Facebook groups is an inordinate fear over something similar happening another bridge. I'm also scratching my head at that notion given the last instance of a similar domestic incident to the Key Bridge collapse was in 1980 with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge.
I mean, there was also technically the Big Bayou Canot derailment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bayou_Canot_rail_accident) caused by a boat striking an unprotected bridge. Along with at least a couple of other other noteworthy incidents around the US of bridges struck by boats and collapsing as a result, even within the time since the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. A similar incident may not necessarily happen tomorrow, but starting some kind of program to better protect the bridges along navigable waters in/around the US would potentially help stop any future ones, even if they could potentially happen 44+ years into the future.
Yes, bottom line is the piers need better protection and also times need to be kept up with the change in vessel designs too.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on March 31, 2024, 09:43:00 PMI am also curious to know if the highway will need to be re-inventoried, in order to change the zero milepost to a location that still exists and can be safely accessed for maintenance purposes. Have other DOTs re-inventoried highways that were severed by bridge collapses?
FWIW, the zero milepost is actually at the Curtis Creek drawbridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.20768,-76.5805939,3a,45.2y,277.68h,86.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKg8SV56VK7BC98PZlBesAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) (even though the exit numbers reset at the Key Bridge).
I think I-695 still uses sequential numbering if I'm not mistaken.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2024, 12:09:12 PMThe time estimates in the article range form that 18 months to 7 years, but headscratchingly no one said the bridge would cost more than $1 Billion to rebuild.
I'll be shocked if it costs less than $5 billion and is finished by the end of the decade.
Hell, it'll probably cost a billion just to pull the destroyed bridge out of the harbor. :-/
Being somewhat facetious, but the general public needs to start wrapping their heads around the reality that this will be a mega-project that costs a buttload and takes years to design and build.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 01, 2024, 08:54:23 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2024, 12:09:12 PMThe time estimates in the article range form that 18 months to 7 years, but headscratchingly no one said the bridge would cost more than $1 Billion to rebuild.
I'll be shocked if it costs less than $5 billion and is finished by the end of the decade.
Hell, it'll probably cost a billion just to pull the destroyed bridge out of the harbor. :-/
Being somewhat facetious, but the general public needs to start wrapping their heads around the reality that this will be a mega-project that costs a buttload and takes years to design and build.
Tell that to Joe Biden. I believe he thinks it can be done faster.
I am somewhat bemused to see this morning that Google Maps shows the bridge as "temporarily closed."
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2024, 09:03:45 AMI am somewhat bemused to see this morning that Google Maps shows the bridge as "temporarily closed."
I saw that also. Plus it shows MD 173 across its Curtis Creek Drawbridge as closed as well as I-695.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2024, 08:50:30 AMI think I-695 still uses sequential numbering if I'm not mistaken.
It does, though the exit numbers are pretty close to the mileposts so it's probably not worth updating them.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 31, 2024, 11:38:28 PMOff forum our page has been covering the bridge collapse (mainly on Facebook). There seems to be an insane sect of people who are convinced this was some domestic or foreign act of terrorism. I'm not getting how any reasonable person would come to either of those conclusions.
For all the good it's capable of doing, social media is a cancer. There were idiotic conspiracy theories and faked videos spreading like wildfire within hours of the collision - "there were explosions", "it was Russia", "it was Ukraine", "it was Israel", "it was Palestine", "it was Biden", "it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster", etc.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2024, 09:03:45 AMI am somewhat bemused to see this morning that Google Maps shows the bridge as "temporarily closed."
Nothing is more permanent than that which is called temporary. Let's hope that's not the case here.
(Of course, the corollary is: Nothing is more temporary than that which is called permanent.)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 01, 2024, 09:12:51 AMQuote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2024, 09:03:45 AMI am somewhat bemused to see this morning that Google Maps shows the bridge as "temporarily closed."
Nothing is more permanent than that which is called temporary. Let's hope that's not the case here.
....
Heh. While it's not related to the bridge, there is this in Reston, Virginia. It's had that name since 1985. The explanation is that apparently the county required that all roads on a map of a proposed development have a name, so someone wrote "Temporary Road" as a placeholder in order to avoid any delays in submitting the paperwork, intending to update it later, and then nobody ever wanted to be bothered doing the work to rename it.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/INEZEWUSBGQM45NI477BNGJVZM.JPG&w=916)
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 31, 2024, 11:41:05 AMQuote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2024, 09:51:17 AMHow about a temporary ferry across the gap? Wouldn't that be feasible to handle cross river traffic and commerce?
Sounds good in theory, but I imagine that a ferry crossing would still be slower than detouring via the tunnels and wouldn't get much use. Not to mention that once the shipping channel is reopened, these ferries would conflict with cargo & cruise ship traffic.
On an unrelated note, I realized going thru my photos that I unintentionally got a distant photo of the Key Bridge back on New Year's Eve, where it snuck into the background of a photo I took of the I-895 K-Truss bridge shortly before the toll plaza & tunnel. Which would make this my most recent photo of the Key Bridge rather than 2022 as I previously thought.
(https://i.imgur.com/d346E5A.jpeg)
This had to be the most essential view of the bridge besides on the bridge itself.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2024, 09:02:31 AMQuote from: triplemultiplex on April 01, 2024, 08:54:23 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2024, 12:09:12 PMThe time estimates in the article range form that 18 months to 7 years, but headscratchingly no one said the bridge would cost more than $1 Billion to rebuild.
I'll be shocked if it costs less than $5 billion and is finished by the end of the decade.
Hell, it'll probably cost a billion just to pull the destroyed bridge out of the harbor. :-/
Being somewhat facetious, but the general public needs to start wrapping their heads around the reality that this will be a mega-project that costs a buttload and takes years to design and build.
Tell that to Joe Biden. I believe he thinks it can be done faster.
The key will be all the permitting. Bloomberg mentioned that if he can waive or shorten a lot of the red tape you normally see with a project, that will be good for everyone (including himself).
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 01, 2024, 10:29:01 AMQuote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2024, 09:02:31 AMQuote from: triplemultiplex on April 01, 2024, 08:54:23 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2024, 12:09:12 PMThe time estimates in the article range form that 18 months to 7 years, but headscratchingly no one said the bridge would cost more than $1 Billion to rebuild.
I'll be shocked if it costs less than $5 billion and is finished by the end of the decade.
Hell, it'll probably cost a billion just to pull the destroyed bridge out of the harbor. :-/
Being somewhat facetious, but the general public needs to start wrapping their heads around the reality that this will be a mega-project that costs a buttload and takes years to design and build.
Tell that to Joe Biden. I believe he thinks it can be done faster.
The key will be all the permitting. Bloomberg mentioned that if he can waive or shorten a lot of the red tape you normally see with a project, that will be good for everyone (including himself).
That would be nice. I wish we can get things done quickly.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 01, 2024, 09:10:13 AMQuote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2024, 08:50:30 AMI think I-695 still uses sequential numbering if I'm not mistaken.
It does, though the exit numbers are pretty close to the mileposts so it's probably not worth updating them.
Quote from: epzik8 on April 01, 2024, 10:16:13 AMQuote from: jmacswimmer on March 31, 2024, 11:41:05 AMQuote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2024, 09:51:17 AMHow about a temporary ferry across the gap? Wouldn't that be feasible to handle cross river traffic and commerce?
Sounds good in theory, but I imagine that a ferry crossing would still be slower than detouring via the tunnels and wouldn't get much use. Not to mention that once the shipping channel is reopened, these ferries would conflict with cargo & cruise ship traffic.
On an unrelated note, I realized going thru my photos that I unintentionally got a distant photo of the Key Bridge back on New Year's Eve, where it snuck into the background of a photo I took of the I-895 K-Truss bridge shortly before the toll plaza & tunnel. Which would make this my most recent photo of the Key Bridge rather than 2022 as I previously thought.
(https://i.imgur.com/d346E5A.jpeg)
This had to be the most essential view of the bridge besides on the bridge itself.
Traffic reporters on WBAL radio tend to call that 895 K-truss the "steel bridge".
Quote from: epzik8 on April 01, 2024, 10:16:13 AMThis had to be the most essential view of the bridge besides on the bridge itself.
It's been quite some time since I've been to Fort McHenry, but I thought the view of the bridge from the harbor side of the fort was pretty impressive (and also made me appreciate the wisdom of putting I-95 in the Fort McHenry Tunnel, rather than building a bridge as had been proposed). Google Street View doesn't really do it justice, but I can't find any pictures I may have taken—maybe it was long enough ago that I was using a film camera. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/pArPuKKMi1cfUAm38)
The fort is well worth the visit if you're in Baltimore and you have time. The movie in the visitor center is worth seeing just for the way it ends.
https://apnews.com/article/infrastructure-poor-bridges-collapse-biden-7c8e28ef55d099c9a4e1103d442b302c
The Baltimore collapse focused attention on vital bridges. Thousands are in poor shape across the US.
In cases like this we always have to look at the national implications of how road inspections take place.
Quote from: bing101 on April 01, 2024, 12:13:23 PMhttps://apnews.com/article/infrastructure-poor-bridges-collapse-biden-7c8e28ef55d099c9a4e1103d442b302c
The Baltimore collapse focused attention on vital bridges. Thousands are in poor shape across the US.
In cases like this we always have to look at the national implications of how road inspections take place.
As much as we like to see our road system become more efficient and roads built that are needed, we do have some infrastructure needs. Perhaps a bit more focus on the deficient bridges (especially those that are primary routes and perhaps at risk and do not have redundant structural integrity-like Francis Scott Key Bridge) and either update or replace them and some may not be needed at all (superceded US routes).
I would be surprised if in my area the existing US 41 bridge over the Ohio River is not like the I-695 bridge in Baltimore and does not have extra structure. Based upon this loss, I might be willing to allow one of the two (either the 90 year old bridge or the almost 60 year old bridge) to be removed to save funds for other bridge work.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2024, 11:08:46 AMQuote from: epzik8 on April 01, 2024, 10:16:13 AMThis had to be the most essential view of the bridge besides on the bridge itself.
It's been quite some time since I've been to Fort McHenry, but I thought the view of the bridge from the harbor side of the fort was pretty impressive (and also made me appreciate the wisdom of putting I-95 in the Fort McHenry Tunnel, rather than building a bridge as had been proposed). Google Street View doesn't really do it justice, but I can't find any pictures I may have taken—maybe it was long enough ago that I was using a film camera. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/pArPuKKMi1cfUAm38)
The fort is well worth the visit if you're in Baltimore and you have time. The movie in the visitor center is worth seeing just for the way it ends.
I've been to Fort McHenry, just not in quite some time.
Quote from: epzik8 on April 01, 2024, 02:33:30 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2024, 11:08:46 AMQuote from: epzik8 on April 01, 2024, 10:16:13 AMThis had to be the most essential view of the bridge besides on the bridge itself.
It's been quite some time since I've been to Fort McHenry, but I thought the view of the bridge from the harbor side of the fort was pretty impressive (and also made me appreciate the wisdom of putting I-95 in the Fort McHenry Tunnel, rather than building a bridge as had been proposed). Google Street View doesn't really do it justice, but I can't find any pictures I may have taken—maybe it was long enough ago that I was using a film camera. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/pArPuKKMi1cfUAm38)
The fort is well worth the visit if you're in Baltimore and you have time. The movie in the visitor center is worth seeing just for the way it ends.
I've been to Fort McHenry, just not in quite some time.
The only photos I have of the Key Bridge were from Fort McHenry:
https://flic.kr/p/SB7sQN
Quote from: Life in Paradise on April 01, 2024, 12:32:15 PMQuote from: bing101 on April 01, 2024, 12:13:23 PMhttps://apnews.com/article/infrastructure-poor-bridges-collapse-biden-7c8e28ef55d099c9a4e1103d442b302c
The Baltimore collapse focused attention on vital bridges. Thousands are in poor shape across the US.
In cases like this we always have to look at the national implications of how road inspections take place.
As much as we like to see our road system become more efficient and roads built that are needed, we do have some infrastructure needs. Perhaps a bit more focus on the deficient bridges (especially those that are primary routes and perhaps at risk and do not have redundant structural integrity-like Francis Scott Key Bridge) and either update or replace them and some may not be needed at all (superceded US routes).
I would be surprised if in my area the existing US 41 bridge over the Ohio River is not like the I-695 bridge in Baltimore and does not have extra structure. Based upon this loss, I might be willing to allow one of the two (either the 90 year old bridge or the almost 60 year old bridge) to be removed to save funds for other bridge work.
All Truss bridges have this same "flaw". it is honestly a flaw in all bridges.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2024, 09:03:45 AMI am somewhat bemused to see this morning that Google Maps shows the bridge as "temporarily closed."
I was kind of wondering about this. Shouldn't Google Maps just erase the entire routing along the bridge route? There's a difference between "temporarily closed" and "doesn't exist." There should be something there where they can just eliminate the route and "reinstall" it when a replacement bridge is finally completed, which would still be years from now, a long time to have the "closure" marked.
Quote from: tdindy88 on April 01, 2024, 04:43:20 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2024, 09:03:45 AMI am somewhat bemused to see this morning that Google Maps shows the bridge as "temporarily closed."
I was kind of wondering about this. Shouldn't Google Maps just erase the entire routing along the bridge route? There's a difference between "temporarily closed" and "doesn't exist." There should be something there where they can just eliminate the route and "reinstall" it when a replacement bridge is finally completed, which would still be years from now, a long time to have the "closure" marked.
Over time I'm sure they will. It's like a no longer needed road sign that gets covered up until they decide to remove it entirely. Doesn't make sense, but we do that in practice.
Quote from: tdindy88 on April 01, 2024, 04:43:20 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2024, 09:03:45 AMI am somewhat bemused to see this morning that Google Maps shows the bridge as "temporarily closed."
I was kind of wondering about this. Shouldn't Google Maps just erase the entire routing along the bridge route? There's a difference between "temporarily closed" and "doesn't exist." There should be something there where they can just eliminate the route and "reinstall" it when a replacement bridge is finally completed, which would still be years from now, a long time to have the "closure" marked.
I think that up stream data provider will need to update the map data. Or it may get removed just to comeback as part of some other map data update.
Quote from: tdindy88 on April 01, 2024, 04:43:20 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2024, 09:03:45 AMI am somewhat bemused to see this morning that Google Maps shows the bridge as "temporarily closed."
I was kind of wondering about this. Shouldn't Google Maps just erase the entire routing along the bridge route? There's a difference between "temporarily closed" and "doesn't exist." There should be something there where they can just eliminate the route and "reinstall" it when a replacement bridge is finally completed, which would still be years from now, a long time to have the "closure" marked.
Why? It's not like they're not going to rebuild it. Should a bridge that's closed for reconstruction be omitted as if it never existed? That's basically what this is - just unexpected.
If a paper map wouldn't delete a route, then Google shouldn't either.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2024, 08:33:41 AMQuote from: TheOneKEA on March 31, 2024, 09:43:00 PMI am also curious to know if the highway will need to be re-inventoried, in order to change the zero milepost to a location that still exists and can be safely accessed for maintenance purposes. Have other DOTs re-inventoried highways that were severed by bridge collapses?
FWIW, the zero milepost is actually at the Curtis Creek drawbridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.20768,-76.5805939,3a,45.2y,277.68h,86.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKg8SV56VK7BC98PZlBesAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) (even though the exit numbers reset at the Key Bridge).
Oh that's right, I forgot about that! For some reason I thought the zero milepost was further back at the spot where the Beltway crossed the Baltimore City line at the bridge approaches.
In addition to the sign patches and/or coverups, perhaps they could take inspiration from I-170 and install the yellow versions of what would normally be orange construction signs towards the closed-off parts of MD 695 (which may be signed in the interim until the new bridge is built, since that's the official designation from I-97 to the northern I-95 junction), like the one on the left side of this image (LEFT LANE CLOSED 1/2 MILE):
(https://www.aaroads.com/md/040/us-040-w-at-arlington-av.jpg)
That is, unless such is considered taboo nowadays, as the sign is no longer there (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2938436,-76.6349334,3a,26y,273.68h,95.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sARoxfcOfoDIlEmPLI6_CQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). I-695 will remain as is from exits 4 to 33 in the clockwise direction, but between the same two exits going counterclockwise, a temporary downgrade wouldn't be too bad. The number is already there, just put up a MD route shield in place of the I- signs, and then re-upgrade after the two sections are connected again.
Does MD 695 receive *any* Federal funding, at least for the SHA portion thereof?
Quote from: ixnay on April 01, 2024, 10:10:33 PMDoes MD 695 receive *any* Federal funding, at least for the SHA portion thereof?
Pfft. No road receives federal funding. The State receives a federal apportionment and can spend it on eligible roads.
MD 695/I-695 is on the NHS and therefore federal-aid eligible and NHPP eligible.
However, if MD is anything like NY, they would let toll revenues cover MDTA facilities while spending their federal aid elsewhere.
So I wonder when the replacement bridge is built, will they have more lanes, or at the very least, have full shoulders?
Quote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 03:13:38 PMSo I wonder when the replacement bridge is built, will they have more lanes, or at the very least, have full shoulders?
The only reason they would not at least do shoulders is if they built a replacement bridge and reused all or part of the existing slab bridges. They could build a truss or cable stayed and do that. I doubt they will, but it would save time and money.
Would it be safe to say that I-695 (or MD 695, if the signs get switched out temporarily) will have a gap in the 2026 and later editions of road maps and atlases? If so, I take it that it'll remain in place until the new bridge is completed and opened to traffic, with dashed green lines for toll roads to denote the actual construction (it's not a matter of if, but when it happens, because Biden has already said that the bridge will be rebuilt). The 2025 edition from Rand McNally is already on sale, so there'll be no gap to reflect the collapse.
Also, how will the rest of the bridge be dismantled? I saw a video of the first Wilson Bridge getting blown up in 2006, and immediately thought of it as one possibility:
However, the biggest drawback is that this would create even more debris to clear from the Patapsco, so maybe a wrecking ball and cranes would be a better alternative.
Quote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 03:13:38 PMSo I wonder when the replacement bridge is built, will they have more lanes, or at the very least, have full shoulders?
The replacement will need to meet current standards.
Quote from: Rothman on April 02, 2024, 05:32:38 PMQuote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 03:13:38 PMSo I wonder when the replacement bridge is built, will they have more lanes, or at the very least, have full shoulders?
The replacement will need to meet current standards.
The fastest way to rebuild would be to widen the deck of the approach spans and then construct a new main span.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 02, 2024, 05:37:58 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 02, 2024, 05:32:38 PMQuote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 03:13:38 PMSo I wonder when the replacement bridge is built, will they have more lanes, or at the very least, have full shoulders?
The replacement will need to meet current standards.
The fastest way to rebuild would be to widen the deck of the approach spans and then construct a new main span.
If it involves modification to where a new EIS is required, this would be just as slow as constructing an entirely new bridge from touchdown point to touchdown point.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 02, 2024, 05:45:35 PMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on April 02, 2024, 05:37:58 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 02, 2024, 05:32:38 PMQuote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 03:13:38 PMSo I wonder when the replacement bridge is built, will they have more lanes, or at the very least, have full shoulders?
The replacement will need to meet current standards.
The fastest way to rebuild would be to widen the deck of the approach spans and then construct a new main span.
If it involves modification to where a new EIS is required, this would be just as slow as constructing an entirely new bridge from touchdown point to touchdown point.
I've been wondering if a full EIS will be waived because of the emergency rebuild and the fact the area is obviously an already disturbed area.
I can pretty much guarantee the Key Bridge won't be rebuilt to the original design.
* When this happens with waterway crossings that have lost spans due to vessel collisions, typically a large fraction of the bridge has survived--this happened with the Tasman Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge_disaster) in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster), and the Queen Isabella Causeway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Isabella_Causeway) in Texas. The part of the Key Bridge that collapsed represents about half of the over-the-water length but probably at least 80% of the construction cost and nearly all of the complexity.
* Once the Port of Baltimore reopens, a lot of the pressure to "do something" about the bridge will vanish. The Key Bridge was one of three major crossings but represented just one-quarter of the capacity. It contributed a smaller share of the total MdTA revenue pie than the Harbor Tunnel (7% versus 12% (https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Files/Financial_Forecast/Final%20MDTA%20FY%202023%20Traffic%20and%20Revenue%20Forecast%20Update%20Report%20(11-02-2022).pdf)) despite their having the same lane count. The absence of the bridge does not even inconvenience local commuters that much, since the Harbor Tunnel is a relatively close detour. (The Tasman Bridge is a useful counterexample--its collapse in 1975 turned a five-minute journey from one end of the bridge to the other into a 45-minute trip involving the Bridgewater Bridge much further upstream. This situation led not only to provision of a temporary ferry, but also construction of the Bowen Bridge midway between the repaired bridge and the erstwhile detour to improve network redundancy.) It is the ruins of the bridge blocking the shipping channel, and not its unavailability to road traffic, that really drives costs.
* To rebuild the Key Bridge as-is would be to recreate its safety deficiencies (no shoulders) and its vulnerabilities (piers that cannot be protected without impinging on the shipping channel). I believe this would be politically completely unacceptable, especially with the precedent set by the Sunshine Skyway. No politician is going to want to go before the voters and say, "Well, in Florida they can rebuild with better defenses, but here in Maryland we're just going to have to go with the cheap solution that is not actually all that cheap and eat the risks associated with it."
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2024, 07:30:26 PM* To rebuild the Key Bridge as-is would be to recreate its safety deficiencies (no shoulders) and its vulnerabilities (piers that cannot be protected without impinging on the shipping channel). I believe this would be politically completely unacceptable, especially with the precedent set by the Sunshine Skyway. No politician is going to want to go before the voters and say, "Well, in Florida they can rebuild with better defenses, but here in Maryland we're just going to have to go with the cheap solution that is not actually all that cheap and eat the risks associated with it."
The new Nice Bridge would like to remind everyone that Maryland doesn't care about shoulders.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2024, 07:30:26 PMI can pretty much guarantee the Key Bridge won't be rebuilt to the original design.
* When this happens with waterway crossings that have lost spans due to vessel collisions, typically a large fraction of the bridge has survived--this happened with the Tasman Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge_disaster) in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster), and the Queen Isabella Causeway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Isabella_Causeway) in Texas. The part of the Key Bridge that collapsed represents about half of the over-the-water length but probably at least 80% of the construction cost and nearly all of the complexity.
* Once the Port of Baltimore reopens, a lot of the pressure to "do something" about the bridge will vanish. The Key Bridge was one of three major crossings but represented just one-quarter of the capacity. It contributed a smaller share of the total MdTA revenue pie than the Harbor Tunnel (7% versus 12% (https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Files/Financial_Forecast/Final%20MDTA%20FY%202023%20Traffic%20and%20Revenue%20Forecast%20Update%20Report%20(11-02-2022).pdf)) despite their having the same lane count. The absence of the bridge does not even inconvenience local commuters that much, since the Harbor Tunnel is a relatively close detour. (The Tasman Bridge is a useful counterexample--its collapse in 1975 turned a five-minute journey from one end of the bridge to the other into a 45-minute trip involving the Bridgewater Bridge much further upstream. This situation led not only to provision of a temporary ferry, but also construction of the Bowen Bridge midway between the repaired bridge and the erstwhile detour to improve network redundancy.) It is the ruins of the bridge blocking the shipping channel, and not its unavailability to road traffic, that really drives costs.
* To rebuild the Key Bridge as-is would be to recreate its safety deficiencies (no shoulders) and its vulnerabilities (piers that cannot be protected without impinging on the shipping channel). I believe this would be politically completely unacceptable, especially with the precedent set by the Sunshine Skyway. No politician is going to want to go before the voters and say, "Well, in Florida they can rebuild with better defenses, but here in Maryland we're just going to have to go with the cheap solution that is not actually all that cheap and eat the risks associated with it."
So you would expect the replacement bridge, at the very least, would be 10-12-12-10_10-12-12-10 per side (2 12 foot travel lanes, 2 ten foot shoulder lanes per side) if not more?
If so would this also become the real I-695 vs MD 695?
I do second the point on the Key Bridge not being that vital in terms of traffic. Having lived in NOVA for awhile, and driven back and fourth hundreds of times to NY/NE, I have never ever taken the Key Bridge. I have taken the Harbor Tunnel.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2024, 07:30:26 PMI can pretty much guarantee the Key Bridge won't be rebuilt to the original design....
I agree there is no way the rebuild a truss here (or hardly anywhere.) They could build a cable stayed or some sort of Suspension bridge that would both be less expensive to build as well as have greater redundancy than a truss bridge. It could either be 100% new construction or built to reasonably match the existing approaches (the bridge itself probably wider and with shoulders. )
Quote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 11:23:09 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2024, 07:30:26 PMI can pretty much guarantee the Key Bridge won't be rebuilt to the original design.
* When this happens with waterway crossings that have lost spans due to vessel collisions, typically a large fraction of the bridge has survived--this happened with the Tasman Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge_disaster) in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster), and the Queen Isabella Causeway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Isabella_Causeway) in Texas. The part of the Key Bridge that collapsed represents about half of the over-the-water length but probably at least 80% of the construction cost and nearly all of the complexity.
* Once the Port of Baltimore reopens, a lot of the pressure to "do something" about the bridge will vanish. The Key Bridge was one of three major crossings but represented just one-quarter of the capacity. It contributed a smaller share of the total MdTA revenue pie than the Harbor Tunnel (7% versus 12% (https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Files/Financial_Forecast/Final%20MDTA%20FY%202023%20Traffic%20and%20Revenue%20Forecast%20Update%20Report%20(11-02-2022).pdf)) despite their having the same lane count. The absence of the bridge does not even inconvenience local commuters that much, since the Harbor Tunnel is a relatively close detour. (The Tasman Bridge is a useful counterexample--its collapse in 1975 turned a five-minute journey from one end of the bridge to the other into a 45-minute trip involving the Bridgewater Bridge much further upstream. This situation led not only to provision of a temporary ferry, but also construction of the Bowen Bridge midway between the repaired bridge and the erstwhile detour to improve network redundancy.) It is the ruins of the bridge blocking the shipping channel, and not its unavailability to road traffic, that really drives costs.
* To rebuild the Key Bridge as-is would be to recreate its safety deficiencies (no shoulders) and its vulnerabilities (piers that cannot be protected without impinging on the shipping channel). I believe this would be politically completely unacceptable, especially with the precedent set by the Sunshine Skyway. No politician is going to want to go before the voters and say, "Well, in Florida they can rebuild with better defenses, but here in Maryland we're just going to have to go with the cheap solution that is not actually all that cheap and eat the risks associated with it."
So you would expect the replacement bridge, at the very least, would be 10-12-12-10_10-12-12-10 per side (2 12 foot travel lanes, 2 ten foot shoulder lanes per side) if not more?
If so would this also become the real I-695 vs MD 695?
for 4-lane divided, the inside shoulders can be 6' preferred, 4' minimum.
I see the Hale Boggs Bridge in Louisiana is another unprotected bridge. It's piers are in open water and are subject for the same type of strike the Francis Scott Key suffered.
Like I mentioned a few pages back, I think there's absolutely zero chance they rebuild it using the current approaches or honestly much of any of the existing facility. (The fact that people like Elon Musk are genuinely suggesting pulling the pieces of the old bridge out of the water and reusing them is terrifying to anyone with brain cells). Especially if the Feds front the entire bill, it would be stupid to not take the opportunity to build something as a "new icon" of Baltimore. Not that I'm saying to overbuild purely to spend more $$, but this bridge is truly the "entrance to the harbor". They're gonna go larger and "iconic" in design, I almost guarantee. Minimum 6 lanes capacity to accommodate any future expansion of 695 on either side (3 each direction), perhaps some type of bike/pedestrian access, and likely a cable stay or suspension design. Maybe something like the new East span of the San Francisco Bay Bridge.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 03, 2024, 02:03:05 AMI see the Hale Boggs Bridge in Louisiana is another unprotected bridge. It's piers are in open water and are subject for the same type of strike the Francis Scott Key suffered.
We must panic.
Quote from: Rothman on April 03, 2024, 06:58:27 AMQuote from: roadman65 on April 03, 2024, 02:03:05 AMI see the Hale Boggs Bridge in Louisiana is another unprotected bridge. It's piers are in open water and are subject for the same type of strike the Francis Scott Key suffered.
We must panic.
Panic isn't the word. We must take proactive measures to update our bridges to conform to safety.
However, every time a barge hits a bridge like on US 59 in Oklahoma it will be front page news.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 03, 2024, 07:05:00 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 03, 2024, 06:58:27 AMQuote from: roadman65 on April 03, 2024, 02:03:05 AMI see the Hale Boggs Bridge in Louisiana is another unprotected bridge. It's piers are in open water and are subject for the same type of strike the Francis Scott Key suffered.
We must panic.
Panic isn't the word. We must take proactive measures to update our bridges to conform to safety.
However, every time a barge hits a bridge like on US 59 in Oklahoma it will be front page news.
How much does everyone want their taxes raised? Or what other maintenance should be deferred?
Unfortunately, the number of bridges that have little or no protection is probably incredibly overwhelming. And these projects to protect the main supports, when they do occur, are years in the making.
Whenever a major incident occurs, it because the newsworthy thing to solve. Until the next newsworthy event occurs. Look at the world around us, and try to think of the next looming disaster. That's truly being proactive. But people won't be concerned about such an issue thinking it won't happen...until it does.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 03, 2024, 07:05:00 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 03, 2024, 06:58:27 AMQuote from: roadman65 on April 03, 2024, 02:03:05 AMI see the Hale Boggs Bridge in Louisiana is another unprotected bridge. It's piers are in open water and are subject for the same type of strike the Francis Scott Key suffered.
We must panic.
Panic isn't the word. We must take proactive measures to update our bridges to conform to safety.
However, every time a barge hits a bridge like on US 59 in Oklahoma it will be front page news.
No, it won't. Give it six months or so and barge hits, which are quite common nationwide, will drift back to regional news reporting where it has been for years.
The public's attention span is notoriously short.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 28, 2024, 10:01:31 PMQuote from: Jim on March 28, 2024, 09:07:24 PMHeading south on I-95 right now, crossing I-695. Very strange knowing we're so close to the site of international news story... The VMS messages are all clear about the closure but the regular signage hasn't been patched or anything yet. We're late enough today that it looks like both tunnels are free and clear.
Don't think they would have been able to fab patches this fast to be honest. Probably by the weekend more 'permanent' signage fixes might be ready, if not sometime next week.
Quote from: Henry on March 28, 2024, 11:28:27 PMAnother way would be to simply cover up the signs with a black tarp, which can be removed once the replacement bridge opens. For now, I-695 will just become another "Highway to Nowhere", as there's no way across the river on it (although the two tunnels are more than capable of taking on the extra traffic).
A possibility I thought that could be implemented, since this likely going to be several years before a replacement bridge is completed, is to temporarily renumber the Baltimore Beltway south of I-95. This would be similar to what Delaware did with I-95/495 during the Wilmington Viaduct reconstruction from 1979 to 1982, when Interstate 895 (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-895-de/) was temporarily designated.
Since the beltway is actually MD 695 east of I-97 to Hawkins Point and south of the eastern junction with I-95 to Sparrows Point, those remaining segments could be renumbered as state route spurs. Then to provide continuity to I-97 without having to place orange signs along the portion of I-695 to the southwest, just extend I-97 to I-95 at the west junction with I-695 near Halethorpe.
Since I've been taking GIS classes, I thought for added practice to create a map showing what I imagined could work:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/i-695-temp-renumbering-concept.png)
MD 995 for the western spur, as the existing MD 995 is not marked, and that could just be reassigned as MD-995A. MD 595 for the eastern section, as MD 595 is not assigned (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/580-599.html#md595) and there would be no conflict with I-595, since it is not signed.
MD 995 could also just as well be MD 397 (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/380-399.html#md397), as that number is also unused.
Quote from: Alex on April 03, 2024, 11:27:32 AMQuote from: rickmastfan67 on March 28, 2024, 10:01:31 PMQuote from: Jim on March 28, 2024, 09:07:24 PMHeading south on I-95 right now, crossing I-695. Very strange knowing we're so close to the site of international news story... The VMS messages are all clear about the closure but the regular signage hasn't been patched or anything yet. We're late enough today that it looks like both tunnels are free and clear.
Don't think they would have been able to fab patches this fast to be honest. Probably by the weekend more 'permanent' signage fixes might be ready, if not sometime next week.
Quote from: Henry on March 28, 2024, 11:28:27 PMAnother way would be to simply cover up the signs with a black tarp, which can be removed once the replacement bridge opens. For now, I-695 will just become another "Highway to Nowhere", as there's no way across the river on it (although the two tunnels are more than capable of taking on the extra traffic).
A possibility I thought that could be implemented, since this likely going to be several years before a replacement bridge is completed, is to temporarily renumber the Baltimore Beltway south of I-95. This would be similar to what Delaware did with I-95/495 during the Wilmington Viaduct reconstruction from 1979 to 1982, when Interstate 895 (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-895-de/) was temporarily designated.
Since the beltway is actually MD 695 east of I-97 to Hawkins Point and south of the eastern junction with I-95 to Sparrows Point, those remaining segments could be renumbered as state route spurs. Then to provide continuity to I-97 without having to place orange signs along the portion of I-695 to the southwest, just extend I-97 to I-95 at the west junction with I-695 near Halethorpe.
Since I've been taking GIS classes, I thought for added practice to create a map showing what I imagined could work:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/i-695-temp-renumbering-concept.png)
MD 995 for the western spur, as the existing MD 995 is not marked, and that could just be reassigned as MD-995A. MD 595 for the eastern section, as MD 595 is not assigned (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/580-599.html#md595) and there would be no conflict with I-595, since it is not signed.
MD 995 could also just as well be MD 397 (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/380-399.html#md397), as that number is also unused.
Would it be possible to just change the segment east/north of the bridge back to MD 695 since that's its official designation?
I also like the idea of giving the segment west/south of the bridge an MD x97 designation.
I think a temporary renumbering of the Interstate 695 beltway is completely unnecessary. Maybe erecting "Temporary" or "To" Interstate 695 signs along the Interstate 895 spurs, Interstate 895 itself, and Interstate 95 (or some other routes) would suffice.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 03, 2024, 02:07:16 PMI think a temporary renumbering of the Interstate 695 beltway is completely unnecessary. Maybe erecting "Temporary" or "To" Interstate 695 signs along the Interstate 895 spurs, Interstate 895 itself, and Interstate 95 (or some other routes) would suffice.
The problem is the portion of I-695 that's out of commission primarily saw thru truck or shipping traffic that can't use the I-95 or I-895 tunnels - in fact, these routes sign the Key Bridge segment of I-695 as truck routes. Considering their only detour is to take the long way around Baltimore, signing I-95 and I-895 as "to" or "temporary" I-695 won't work.
https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-bridge-collapse-liability-litigation-16de885948e769566e7181ffa35b1753
Filed on April Fool's Day and too bad it isn't one. The company whose boat knocked the bridge down wants to limit their liability to less than $100M.
Please join me for a special edition Webinar presentation on Friday 4/5 at 6 PM ET. It will feature a comprehensive examination of the Francis Scott Key Bridge disaster of March 26, 2024. Included will be a discussion of the history of the bridge, the circumstances surrounding its collapse, and the immediate recovery and salvage efforts already underway. We'll also be looking ahead at what to expect from a potential future replacement crossing over the next few years.
Link to Key Bridge Webinar:
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 03, 2024, 11:47:08 AMQuote from: Alex on April 03, 2024, 11:27:32 AMQuote from: rickmastfan67 on March 28, 2024, 10:01:31 PMQuote from: Jim on March 28, 2024, 09:07:24 PMHeading south on I-95 right now, crossing I-695. Very strange knowing we're so close to the site of international news story... The VMS messages are all clear about the closure but the regular signage hasn't been patched or anything yet. We're late enough today that it looks like both tunnels are free and clear.
Don't think they would have been able to fab patches this fast to be honest. Probably by the weekend more 'permanent' signage fixes might be ready, if not sometime next week.
Quote from: Henry on March 28, 2024, 11:28:27 PMAnother way would be to simply cover up the signs with a black tarp, which can be removed once the replacement bridge opens. For now, I-695 will just become another "Highway to Nowhere", as there's no way across the river on it (although the two tunnels are more than capable of taking on the extra traffic).
A possibility I thought that could be implemented, since this likely going to be several years before a replacement bridge is completed, is to temporarily renumber the Baltimore Beltway south of I-95. This would be similar to what Delaware did with I-95/495 during the Wilmington Viaduct reconstruction from 1979 to 1982, when Interstate 895 (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-895-de/) was temporarily designated.
Since the beltway is actually MD 695 east of I-97 to Hawkins Point and south of the eastern junction with I-95 to Sparrows Point, those remaining segments could be renumbered as state route spurs. Then to provide continuity to I-97 without having to place orange signs along the portion of I-695 to the southwest, just extend I-97 to I-95 at the west junction with I-695 near Halethorpe.
Since I've been taking GIS classes, I thought for added practice to create a map showing what I imagined could work:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/i-695-temp-renumbering-concept.png)
MD 995 for the western spur, as the existing MD 995 is not marked, and that could just be reassigned as MD-995A. MD 595 for the eastern section, as MD 595 is not assigned (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/580-599.html#md595) and there would be no conflict with I-595, since it is not signed.
MD 995 could also just as well be MD 397 (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/380-399.html#md397), as that number is also unused.
Would it be possible to just change the segment east/north of the bridge back to MD 695 since that's its official designation?
I also like the idea of giving the segment west/south of the bridge an MD x97 designation.
Hey, extending I-97 to meet I-95 is not a bad idea at all, and it would have a proper terminus as opposed to being a spur off I-895 (why didn't they extend it onto the Thruway when they had the chance?). However, I'm still partial to signing the broken parts of the beltway as MD 695, and I have no problem with it being discontiguous. And MD does not like to sign "Temporary" routes, so making either tunnel route a temporary I-695 is a nonstarter, plus hazmats and other tunnel no-no's now go the other way around on the loop anyway.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 03, 2024, 02:07:16 PMI think a temporary renumbering of the Interstate 695 beltway is completely unnecessary. Maybe erecting "Temporary" or "To" Interstate 695 signs along the Interstate 895 spurs, Interstate 895 itself, and Interstate 95 (or some other routes) would suffice.
Everyone knows 695, and it should stay as such. It just won't be a full loop for the time being.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 03, 2024, 02:26:38 PMhttps://apnews.com/article/baltimore-bridge-collapse-liability-litigation-16de885948e769566e7181ffa35b1753
Filed on April Fool's Day and too bad it isn't one. The company whose boat knocked the bridge down wants to limit their liability to less than $100M.
I mean, that's pretty standard. If anyone caused an accidental loss, they would want to try to find a way out of paying, regardless if it's $10 or $1 billion.
Quote from: epzik8 on April 03, 2024, 04:39:36 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 03, 2024, 02:07:16 PMI think a temporary renumbering of the Interstate 695 beltway is completely unnecessary. Maybe erecting "Temporary" or "To" Interstate 695 signs along the Interstate 895 spurs, Interstate 895 itself, and Interstate 95 (or some other routes) would suffice.
Everyone knows 695, and it should stay as such. It just won't be a full loop for the time being.
Yes, Alex's numbering ideas aren't bad, but I would be happy with the whole thing remaining 695.
Plus, moving 995 to the Hawkins Point stub would leave the road people with the dilemma of what new number to put on the BWI Amtrak station access road, which MD 995 now graces, though not in signing.
Quote from: ixnay on April 03, 2024, 08:16:39 PMQuote from: epzik8 on April 03, 2024, 04:39:36 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 03, 2024, 02:07:16 PMI think a temporary renumbering of the Interstate 695 beltway is completely unnecessary. Maybe erecting "Temporary" or "To" Interstate 695 signs along the Interstate 895 spurs, Interstate 895 itself, and Interstate 95 (or some other routes) would suffice.
Everyone knows 695, and it should stay as such. It just won't be a full loop for the time being.
Yes, Alex's numbering ideas aren't bad, but I would be happy with the whole thing remaining 695.
Plus, moving 995 to the Hawkins Point stub would leave the road people with the dilemma of what new number to put on the BWI Amtrak station access road, which MD 995 now graces, though not in signing.
My thoughts on renumbering all of MD 695 south to different numbers was based upon the concept of discouraging through traffic from using it while also conveying that 695 is no longer a complete loop. I-695 or MD 695, I also imagine some motorists cannot discern the difference.
Maryland often assigns multiple branches as unsigned suffixes, which is why I thought MD 995 could be used.
Nonetheless, I can easily redo the map to show the whole southern half as MD 695 or whatever else might work. More than likely we'll see orange guide signs, tarped signs, and VMS alerts for the foreseeable future for I-695 south of I-95.
Traffic was a mess on all the alternative routes yesterday with the rain. Saw the VMS signs were quoting 30 minutes to go 7 miles on both 95 and 895. Traffic on 95 was backed up past the Beltway. An accident north of town on the 695 ramp to 95 North also backed things up.
Hoping there can be some long-term fixes to traffic patterns to help things out.
Question that hasn't really been answered. Why was it kept as MD695 despite I695 being up to the standards except for drawbridges by 1999?
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2024, 10:48:26 AMQuestion that hasn't really been answered. Why was it kept as MD695 despite I695 being up to the standards except for drawbridges by 1999?
I'm pretty sure it's because some of those segments were still substandard (the Key Bridge was also substandard), plus it wasn't built on the original approved alignment for I-695 due to freeway cancellations.
Quote from: Alex on April 03, 2024, 10:16:00 PMQuote from: ixnay on April 03, 2024, 08:16:39 PMQuote from: epzik8 on April 03, 2024, 04:39:36 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 03, 2024, 02:07:16 PMI think a temporary renumbering of the Interstate 695 beltway is completely unnecessary. Maybe erecting "Temporary" or "To" Interstate 695 signs along the Interstate 895 spurs, Interstate 895 itself, and Interstate 95 (or some other routes) would suffice.
Everyone knows 695, and it should stay as such. It just won't be a full loop for the time being.
Yes, Alex's numbering ideas aren't bad, but I would be happy with the whole thing remaining 695.
Plus, moving 995 to the Hawkins Point stub would leave the road people with the dilemma of what new number to put on the BWI Amtrak station access road, which MD 995 now graces, though not in signing.
My thoughts on renumbering all of MD 695 south to different numbers was based upon the concept of discouraging through traffic from using it while also conveying that 695 is no longer a complete loop. I-695 or MD 695, I also imagine some motorists cannot discern the difference.
Maryland often assigns multiple branches as unsigned suffixes, which is why I thought MD 995 could be used.
Nometheless, I can easily redo the map to show the whole southern half as MD 695 or whatever else might work. More than likely we'll see orange guide signs, tarped signs, and VMS alerts for the foreseeable future for I-695 south of I-95.
Let it be known that I am not at all bashing your map, and just wanted to get my two cents in on the situation.
Google Maps no longer shows the bridge.
Random Q, i was looking at old aerials, there used to be a bridge from near the toll plaza, across an arm of the bay, did that bridge have a name?
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 04, 2024, 04:13:21 PMGoogle Maps no longer shows the bridge.
Hope the Street View doesn't go with it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 04, 2024, 06:02:21 PMQuote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2024, 04:54:41 PMQuote from: epzik8 on April 04, 2024, 04:52:54 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on April 04, 2024, 04:13:21 PMGoogle Maps no longer shows the bridge.
Hope the Street View doesn't go with it.
It shouldn't
Unfortunately, it did.
It did but you can still access it by viewing the Street View of the approaches and manually moving onto the bridge.
You don't even have to do it that way. Just click where the bridge used to be, and it will work.
Does anyone know why Broening Hwy. (exit 44 on Interstate 695) is shown on maps as MD 695? Wikipedia says its officially MD 695A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_695_(Maryland)#Auxiliary_routes, although Google Maps and Rand McNally show it as MD 695. There is also a MD 695B and a MD 695C, although all three routes are not signposted.
Thanks--I tried both approaches and, yes, they do work, at least in Firefox on Windows. Clicking on the missing segment requires that StreetView blue lines be active (clicking on Peg Man toggles them on). If the cursor hovers over the missing segment, where the blue lines would otherwise go but now do not, a preview will show. Dragging and dropping Peg Man just takes you to still images photographed from a drone when the bridge was still standing.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/536BJFxJfFXRhBww9
Still works. Drag the peg man to the approach and virtually move up the span and you get the old roadway.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2024, 06:45:10 PMDoes anyone know why Broening Hwy. (exit 44 on Interstate 695) is shown on maps as MD 695? Wikipedia says its officially MD 695A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_695_(Maryland)#Auxiliary_routes, although Google Maps and Rand McNally show it as MD 695. There is also a MD 695B and a MD 695C, although all three routes are not signposted.
If you are referring to Maryland official state or county maps it is because they don't put the suffixes on the labels. So for example all the different suffixed segments of MD 7 are shown as just MD 7.
FWIW, suffixed route numbers should be signed only if the letter stands for a cardinal direction. And don't get me started on the I-270 and I-895 spurs either.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2024, 06:45:10 PMDoes anyone know why Broening Hwy. (exit 44 on Interstate 695) is shown on maps as MD 695? Wikipedia says its officially MD 695A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_695_(Maryland)#Auxiliary_routes, although Google Maps and Rand McNally show it as MD 695. There is also a MD 695B and a MD 695C, although all three routes are not signposted.
Maryland numbers branches of a route with suffixes, but those are for inventory purposes and often things such as frontage roads or access roads. You can see where they are on MDOT GIS files and also the Highway Location Reference (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/mdotsha/pages/Index.aspx?PageId=832) reports. The one for Baltimore County is here (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/2022%20Baltimore.pdf).
Quote from: Henry on April 04, 2024, 10:49:09 PMFWIW, suffixed route numbers should be signed only if the letter stands for a cardinal direction. And don't get me started on the I-270 and I-895 spurs either.
So MA 1A should be unsigned? This is the same situation.
Quote from: Alex on April 04, 2024, 11:11:54 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2024, 06:45:10 PMDoes anyone know why Broening Hwy. (exit 44 on Interstate 695) is shown on maps as MD 695? Wikipedia says its officially MD 695A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_695_(Maryland)#Auxiliary_routes, although Google Maps and Rand McNally show it as MD 695. There is also a MD 695B and a MD 695C, although all three routes are not signposted.
Maryland numbers branches of a route with suffixes, but those are for inventory purposes and often things such as frontage roads or access roads. You can see where they are on MDOT GIS files and also the Highway Location Reference (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/mdotsha/pages/Index.aspx?PageId=832) reports. The one for Baltimore County is here (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/2022%20Baltimore.pdf).
And usually those suffixed routes aren't signed, although sometimes they appear on mileposts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_895#/media/File:2016-08-15_07_17_01_View_south_along_Interstate_895B_(Baltimore_Harbor_Tunnel_Thruway_-_Governor_Ritchie_Highway_Connector)_just_south_of_Hammonds_Lane_in_Brooklyn_Park,_Anne_Arundel_County,_Maryland.jpg).
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 05, 2024, 08:48:55 AMQuote from: Alex on April 04, 2024, 11:11:54 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2024, 06:45:10 PMDoes anyone know why Broening Hwy. (exit 44 on Interstate 695) is shown on maps as MD 695? Wikipedia says its officially MD 695A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_695_(Maryland)#Auxiliary_routes, although Google Maps and Rand McNally show it as MD 695. There is also a MD 695B and a MD 695C, although all three routes are not signposted.
Maryland numbers branches of a route with suffixes, but those are for inventory purposes and often things such as frontage roads or access roads. You can see where they are on MDOT GIS files and also the Highway Location Reference (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/mdotsha/pages/Index.aspx?PageId=832) reports. The one for Baltimore County is here (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/2022%20Baltimore.pdf).
And usually those suffixed routes aren't signed, although sometimes they appear on mileposts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_895#/media/File:2016-08-15_07_17_01_View_south_along_Interstate_895B_(Baltimore_Harbor_Tunnel_Thruway_-_Governor_Ritchie_Highway_Connector)_just_south_of_Hammonds_Lane_in_Brooklyn_Park,_Anne_Arundel_County,_Maryland.jpg).
With the exception of MD 835A (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9764376,-76.3225009,3a,75y,49.44h,85.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfxEX5fP4i9H0RKhXTrZrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 05, 2024, 09:12:07 AMWith the exception of MD 835A (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9764376,-76.3225009,3a,75y,49.44h,85.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfxEX5fP4i9H0RKhXTrZrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).
Or here - https://maps.app.goo.gl/z4t2gFGTH3J2hB4m7
Quote from: roadman65 on April 04, 2024, 06:53:32 PMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/536BJFxJfFXRhBww9
Still works. Drag the peg man to the approach and virtually move up the span and you get the old roadway.
It's actually even simpler than that, if you drag the peg man to where the bridge used to be, you'll get sent to Street View even though there's no blue line.
It seems removing the bridge caused some other glitches because the blue lines are missing from some other bridges, particularly the VA 175 bridge into Chincoteague, but you can still access GSV of that location by dragging the peg man to where the blue line used to be.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 04, 2024, 12:09:40 PMQuote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2024, 10:48:26 AMQuestion that hasn't really been answered. Why was it kept as MD695 despite I695 being up to the standards except for drawbridges by 1999?
I'm pretty sure it's because some of those segments were still substandard (the Key Bridge was also substandard), plus it wasn't built on the original approved alignment for I-695 due to freeway cancellations.
There was never an approved alignment for I-695 there. The plan was always for 695 and 895 to form the Interstate beltway, and the east part of 695 was never added to the Interstate Highway System in any form.
Quote from: NE2 on April 05, 2024, 08:26:14 PMQuote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 04, 2024, 12:09:40 PMQuote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2024, 10:48:26 AMQuestion that hasn't really been answered. Why was it kept as MD695 despite I695 being up to the standards except for drawbridges by 1999?
I'm pretty sure it's because some of those segments were still substandard (the Key Bridge was also substandard), plus it wasn't built on the original approved alignment for I-695 due to freeway cancellations.
There was never an approved alignment for I-695 there. The plan was always for 695 and 895 to form the Interstate beltway, and the east part of 695 was never added to the Interstate Highway System in any form.
Huh, that makes perfect sense.
Quote from: NE2 on April 05, 2024, 08:26:14 PMQuote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 04, 2024, 12:09:40 PMQuote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2024, 10:48:26 AMQuestion that hasn't really been answered. Why was it kept as MD695 despite I695 being up to the standards except for drawbridges by 1999?
I'm pretty sure it's because some of those segments were still substandard (the Key Bridge was also substandard), plus it wasn't built on the original approved alignment for I-695 due to freeway cancellations.
There was never an approved alignment for I-695 there. The plan was always for 695 and 895 to form the Interstate beltway, and the east part of 695 was never added to the Interstate Highway System in any form.
Appreciate the clarification.
The incident response now has its own website:
https://www.keybridgeresponse2024.com/
Today's press release (https://www.keybridgeresponse2024.com/post/update-9-release-unified-command-dive-teams-recover-body-of-missing-worker) concerned the recovery of the body of Maynor Yasir Suazo-Sandoval, aged 38, who was one of the workers on the bridge.
Since the collapse, I've driven through the area on the I-895 SB at night and didn't see the Key Bridge remains, landed at then took off from BWI but in bad weather so nothing but clouds until near the airport, and just now NB I-95, and finally got a brief view. On today's ride MD 295 -> I-95 there were no VMS messages or signage modifications regarding the closure. I guess if you don't know the bridge is out by now...
I wonder if the steel of the bridge will be immediately sent to a scrap yard to be melted down and recycled, or will investigators keep hold of the remains of the bridge for awhile to further investigate how it collapsed?
Quote from: Jim on April 06, 2024, 10:50:22 AMSince the collapse, I've driven through the area on the I-895 SB at night and didn't see the Key Bridge remains, landed at then took off from BWI but in bad weather so nothing but clouds until near the airport, and just now NB I-95, and finally got a brief view. On today's ride MD 295 -> I-95 there were no VMS messages or signage modifications regarding the closure. I guess if you don't know the bridge is out by now...
The VMS messages were gone within about 36 hours.
Quote from: Lyon Wonder on April 06, 2024, 07:42:33 PMI wonder if the steel of the bridge will be immediately sent to a scrap yard to be melted down and recycled, or will investigators keep hold of the remains of the bridge for awhile to further investigate how it collapsed?
honestly, the method of collapse is a well known thing at this point, truss was overloaded when a major pier was removed. It wasn't a defect, just a flaw in the design from day 1. So i am going to assume it will be kept for a little bit, then scrapped.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 06, 2024, 09:28:10 PMhonestly, the method of collapse is a well known thing at this point, truss was overloaded when a major pier was removed. It wasn't a defect, just a flaw in the design from day 1.
I said this above. If you take out a pier or a tower on any bridge , it is going to fall. Maybe not as quickly as a truss bridge, but if you lose a support like this unless you have duplicate supports (and virtually nothing does,) it is going to fall.
This collapse goes well beyond the definition of "fracture critical". Fracture critical USUALLY means the failure of a single SUBORDINATE part can cause a collapse. The loss of a pier (or a tower on a suspension or cable stayed bridge) will allow the bridge to collapse. It might even cause it to collapse when it is damaged or fails.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 07, 2024, 11:52:54 PMQuote from: SteveG1988 on April 06, 2024, 09:28:10 PMhonestly, the method of collapse is a well known thing at this point, truss was overloaded when a major pier was removed. It wasn't a defect, just a flaw in the design from day 1.
I said this above. If you take out a pier or a tower on any bridge , it is going to fall. Maybe not as quickly as a truss bridge, but if you lose a support like this unless you have duplicate supports (and virtually nothing does,) it is going to fall.
This collapse goes well beyond the definition of "fracture critical". Fracture critical USUALLY means the failure of a single SUBORDINATE part can cause a collapse. The loss of a pier (or a tower on a suspension or cable stayed bridge) will allow the bridge to collapse. It might even cause it to collapse when it is damaged or fails.
That's because you have the piers holding up several hundred feet of roadway. Unlike normal bridges where the spans are far less. Here you had both sides of the bridge holding each other in place. Once the trickle effect hit the middle it than loosened the other side of the bridge throwing it off balance to then fall itself. Even when it got to the other pier, the other side of that became top heavy and fell backwards itself.
This design relied on all of its parts together holding the bridge up and steady on its two pylons.
Got a view of the scene (from a distance) for the first time while heading into downtown Baltimore for a concert Sunday afternoon. This is from I-95 NB exit 53 onto I-395 - the "stumps" of the intact spans on either side, as well as the Dali, are visible in the distance.
(https://i.imgur.com/ate4cu1.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IqqHwLN.jpeg)
Speaking of the Dali, latest I saw on Sunday is that crews are beginning to remove containers from the front of the Dali in preparation for lifting the portions of the truss sitting directly across the ship.
https://www.keybridgeresponse2024.com/post/update-11-multimedia-release-removal-of-containers-onboard-m-v-dali-commences-at-site-of-key-bridge
Quote from: Lyon Wonder on April 06, 2024, 07:42:33 PMI wonder if the steel of the bridge will be immediately sent to a scrap yard to be melted down and recycled, or will investigators keep hold of the remains of the bridge for awhile to further investigate how it collapsed?
My understanding is that truss portions removed so far were barged over to nearby Sparrows Point for scrapping - forget which exact article stated that, but here is the official response which does at least mention "Future disposal".
https://www.keybridgeresponse2024.com/post/update-10-multimedia-release-salvage-operations-continue-at-site-of-key-bridge-incident
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 06, 2024, 09:28:10 PMIt wasn't a defect, just a flaw in the design from day 1.
Imaginably, it wasn't regarded as such in 1977.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2024, 05:52:14 AMQuote from: bwana39 on April 07, 2024, 11:52:54 PMQuote from: SteveG1988 on April 06, 2024, 09:28:10 PMhonestly, the method of collapse is a well known thing at this point, truss was overloaded when a major pier was removed. It wasn't a defect, just a flaw in the design from day 1.
I said this above. If you take out a pier or a tower on any bridge , it is going to fall. Maybe not as quickly as a truss bridge, but if you lose a support like this unless you have duplicate supports (and virtually nothing does,) it is going to fall.
This collapse goes well beyond the definition of "fracture critical". Fracture critical USUALLY means the failure of a single SUBORDINATE part can cause a collapse. The loss of a pier (or a tower on a suspension or cable stayed bridge) will allow the bridge to collapse. It might even cause it to collapse when it is damaged or fails.
That's because you have the piers holding up several hundred feet of roadway. Unlike normal bridges where the spans are far less. Here you had both sides of the bridge holding each other in place. Once the trickle effect hit the middle it than loosened the other side of the bridge throwing it off balance to then fall itself. Even when it got to the other pier, the other side of that became top heavy and fell backwards itself.
This design relied on all of its parts together holding the bridge up and steady on its two pylons.
True, if it were a different design only two of the truss sections would have fallen as opposed to all three.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 10, 2024, 11:49:35 PMQuote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2024, 05:52:14 AMQuote from: bwana39 on April 07, 2024, 11:52:54 PMQuote from: SteveG1988 on April 06, 2024, 09:28:10 PMhonestly, the method of collapse is a well known thing at this point, truss was overloaded when a major pier was removed. It wasn't a defect, just a flaw in the design from day 1.
I said this above. If you take out a pier or a tower on any bridge , it is going to fall. Maybe not as quickly as a truss bridge, but if you lose a support like this unless you have duplicate supports (and virtually nothing does,) it is going to fall.
This collapse goes well beyond the definition of "fracture critical". Fracture critical USUALLY means the failure of a single SUBORDINATE part can cause a collapse. The loss of a pier (or a tower on a suspension or cable stayed bridge) will allow the bridge to collapse. It might even cause it to collapse when it is damaged or fails.
That's because you have the piers holding up several hundred feet of roadway. Unlike normal bridges where the spans are far less. Here you had both sides of the bridge holding each other in place. Once the trickle effect hit the middle it than loosened the other side of the bridge throwing it off balance to then fall itself. Even when it got to the other pier, the other side of that became top heavy and fell backwards itself.
This design relied on all of its parts together holding the bridge up and steady on its two pylons.
True, if it were a different design only two of the truss sections would have fallen as opposed to all three.
And we'd still be in the same position we are now: A missing bridge, expensive steel if it were to be rebuilt to original specs, different design standards then vs. now, etc.
On Monday, the closure point on the Dundalk side is moving back from exit 43 to exit 42. I'm assuming it's due to an unrelated project that was set to begin when the collapse happened (MDTA had tweeted about it 2 days prior, shown below) - makes sense to just go ahead and do a full closure versus the long-term single-lane-per-direction that had been planned.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJdiV_OXsAAiklL?format=jpg&name=large)
They're actually going to let go of a speed camera zone??
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 14, 2024, 07:20:16 AMThey're actually going to let go of a speed camera zone??
They'll just deploy them to a second spot in the I-95 toll lane construction
Google Maps just removed the Key Bridge from the maps lol
I can still do the street view and it says "temporarily closed" on the main map.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 15, 2024, 01:59:52 AMGoogle Maps just removed the Key Bridge from the maps lol
"Just"? It was quite some time ago and was already reported on the forum.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 15, 2024, 03:10:01 AMI can still do the street view and it says "temporarily closed" on the main map.
I hope the street view stays forever. It's all we have resembling a real trip along the bridge now.
Quote from: epzik8 on April 15, 2024, 09:42:48 AMQuote from: bwana39 on April 15, 2024, 03:10:01 AMI can still do the street view and it says "temporarily closed" on the main map.
I hope the street view stays forever. It's all we have resembling a real trip along the bridge now.
Roadwaywiz (https://www.youtube.com/@roadwaywiz/search?query=key%20bridge), Mileage Mike (https://www.youtube.com/@MileageMikeTravels/search?query=key%20bridge), and Roadsounder99 (https://www.youtube.com/@TrsDp8094/search?query=key%20bridge) amongst others have that taken care of for you. :nod:
Maybe when the Francis Scott Key Bridge is rebuilt, one could head over to Fort Carroll and watch the reconstruction. Of course, one would probably need binoculars or a telescope to get a good view of the construction.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 12, 2024, 04:31:31 PMOn Monday, the closure point on the Dundalk side is moving back from exit 43 to exit 42. I'm assuming it's due to an unrelated project that was set to begin when the collapse happened (MDTA had tweeted about it 2 days prior, shown below) - makes sense to just go ahead and do a full closure versus the long-term single-lane-per-direction that had been planned.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJdiV_OXsAAiklL?format=jpg&name=large)
And because it's MD, AES will be on regardless of whether or not workers are present.
Seeing reports that FBI has launched a criminal investigation.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on April 15, 2024, 11:26:01 AMSeeing reports that FBI has launched a criminal investigation.
First learned that this morning through https://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/3465714-fbi-key-bridge-collapse-now-criminal.html ...
...but here I link a Baltimore media source (Charm City's NBC affiliate)...
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/criminal-investigation-key-bridge-collapse-started-fbi/60497901
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2024, 10:05:21 AMQuote from: epzik8 on April 15, 2024, 09:42:48 AMQuote from: bwana39 on April 15, 2024, 03:10:01 AMI can still do the street view and it says "temporarily closed" on the main map.
I hope the street view stays forever. It's all we have resembling a real trip along the bridge now.
Roadwaywiz (https://www.youtube.com/@roadwaywiz/search?query=key%20bridge), Mileage Mike (https://www.youtube.com/@MileageMikeTravels/search?query=key%20bridge), and Roadsounder99 (https://www.youtube.com/@TrsDp8094/search?query=key%20bridge) amongst others have that taken care of for you. :nod:
As it happens, I have video of my own last trip across the bridge from this past Christmas.
Wow, seeing is believing... The most recent pass of the Sentinel 2 remote sensing satellite on April 14 reveals the extent of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/francis-scott-key-br-2024-04-14-sentinel-2.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/francis-scott-key-br-2024-04-14-sentinel-2.jpg)
Quote from: Alex on April 03, 2024, 11:27:32 AMQuote from: rickmastfan67 on March 28, 2024, 10:01:31 PMQuote from: Jim on March 28, 2024, 09:07:24 PMHeading south on I-95 right now, crossing I-695. Very strange knowing we're so close to the site of international news story... The VMS messages are all clear about the closure but the regular signage hasn't been patched or anything yet. We're late enough today that it looks like both tunnels are free and clear.
Don't think they would have been able to fab patches this fast to be honest. Probably by the weekend more 'permanent' signage fixes might be ready, if not sometime next week.
Quote from: Henry on March 28, 2024, 11:28:27 PMAnother way would be to simply cover up the signs with a black tarp, which can be removed once the replacement bridge opens. For now, I-695 will just become another "Highway to Nowhere", as there's no way across the river on it (although the two tunnels are more than capable of taking on the extra traffic).
A possibility I thought that could be implemented, since this likely going to be several years before a replacement bridge is completed, is to temporarily renumber the Baltimore Beltway south of I-95. This would be similar to what Delaware did with I-95/495 during the Wilmington Viaduct reconstruction from 1979 to 1982, when Interstate 895 (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-895-de/) was temporarily designated.
Since the beltway is actually MD 695 east of I-97 to Hawkins Point and south of the eastern junction with I-95 to Sparrows Point, those remaining segments could be renumbered as state route spurs. Then to provide continuity to I-97 without having to place orange signs along the portion of I-695 to the southwest, just extend I-97 to I-95 at the west junction with I-695 near Halethorpe.
Since I've been taking GIS classes, I thought for added practice to create a map showing what I imagined could work:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/i-695-temp-renumbering-concept.png)
MD 995 for the western spur, as the existing MD 995 is not marked, and that could just be reassigned as MD-995A. MD 595 for the eastern section, as MD 595 is not assigned (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/580-599.html#md595) and there would be no conflict with I-595, since it is not signed.
MD 995 could also just as well be MD 397 (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/380-399.html#md397), as that number is also unused.
How long did it take you to make sure the road labels were the right size and orientation :cool:
Quote from: Big John on April 03, 2024, 01:28:39 AMQuote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 11:23:09 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2024, 07:30:26 PMI can pretty much guarantee the Key Bridge won't be rebuilt to the original design.
* When this happens with waterway crossings that have lost spans due to vessel collisions, typically a large fraction of the bridge has survived--this happened with the Tasman Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge_disaster) in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster), and the Queen Isabella Causeway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Isabella_Causeway) in Texas. The part of the Key Bridge that collapsed represents about half of the over-the-water length but probably at least 80% of the construction cost and nearly all of the complexity.
* Once the Port of Baltimore reopens, a lot of the pressure to "do something" about the bridge will vanish. The Key Bridge was one of three major crossings but represented just one-quarter of the capacity. It contributed a smaller share of the total MdTA revenue pie than the Harbor Tunnel (7% versus 12% (https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Files/Financial_Forecast/Final%20MDTA%20FY%202023%20Traffic%20and%20Revenue%20Forecast%20Update%20Report%20(11-02-2022).pdf)) despite their having the same lane count. The absence of the bridge does not even inconvenience local commuters that much, since the Harbor Tunnel is a relatively close detour. (The Tasman Bridge is a useful counterexample--its collapse in 1975 turned a five-minute journey from one end of the bridge to the other into a 45-minute trip involving the Bridgewater Bridge much further upstream. This situation led not only to provision of a temporary ferry, but also construction of the Bowen Bridge midway between the repaired bridge and the erstwhile detour to improve network redundancy.) It is the ruins of the bridge blocking the shipping channel, and not its unavailability to road traffic, that really drives costs.
* To rebuild the Key Bridge as-is would be to recreate its safety deficiencies (no shoulders) and its vulnerabilities (piers that cannot be protected without impinging on the shipping channel). I believe this would be politically completely unacceptable, especially with the precedent set by the Sunshine Skyway. No politician is going to want to go before the voters and say, "Well, in Florida they can rebuild with better defenses, but here in Maryland we're just going to have to go with the cheap solution that is not actually all that cheap and eat the risks associated with it."
So you would expect the replacement bridge, at the very least, would be 10-12-12-10_10-12-12-10 per side (2 12 foot travel lanes, 2 ten foot shoulder lanes per side) if not more?
If so would this also become the real I-695 vs MD 695?
for 4-lane divided, the inside shoulders can be 6' preferred, 4' minimum.
So at the very least it will be 2 12 foot lanes per side, 4-6 foot inside and 10 foot outside shoulders?
Think they will just go ahead and give it a 3rd trade lane per side?
Quote from: bluecountry on April 19, 2024, 07:56:50 PMQuote from: Big John on April 03, 2024, 01:28:39 AMQuote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 11:23:09 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2024, 07:30:26 PMI can pretty much guarantee the Key Bridge won't be rebuilt to the original design.
* When this happens with waterway crossings that have lost spans due to vessel collisions, typically a large fraction of the bridge has survived--this happened with the Tasman Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge_disaster) in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster), and the Queen Isabella Causeway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Isabella_Causeway) in Texas. The part of the Key Bridge that collapsed represents about half of the over-the-water length but probably at least 80% of the construction cost and nearly all of the complexity.
* Once the Port of Baltimore reopens, a lot of the pressure to "do something" about the bridge will vanish. The Key Bridge was one of three major crossings but represented just one-quarter of the capacity. It contributed a smaller share of the total MdTA revenue pie than the Harbor Tunnel (7% versus 12% (https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Files/Financial_Forecast/Final%20MDTA%20FY%202023%20Traffic%20and%20Revenue%20Forecast%20Update%20Report%20(11-02-2022).pdf)) despite their having the same lane count. The absence of the bridge does not even inconvenience local commuters that much, since the Harbor Tunnel is a relatively close detour. (The Tasman Bridge is a useful counterexample--its collapse in 1975 turned a five-minute journey from one end of the bridge to the other into a 45-minute trip involving the Bridgewater Bridge much further upstream. This situation led not only to provision of a temporary ferry, but also construction of the Bowen Bridge midway between the repaired bridge and the erstwhile detour to improve network redundancy.) It is the ruins of the bridge blocking the shipping channel, and not its unavailability to road traffic, that really drives costs.
* To rebuild the Key Bridge as-is would be to recreate its safety deficiencies (no shoulders) and its vulnerabilities (piers that cannot be protected without impinging on the shipping channel). I believe this would be politically completely unacceptable, especially with the precedent set by the Sunshine Skyway. No politician is going to want to go before the voters and say, "Well, in Florida they can rebuild with better defenses, but here in Maryland we're just going to have to go with the cheap solution that is not actually all that cheap and eat the risks associated with it."
So you would expect the replacement bridge, at the very least, would be 10-12-12-10_10-12-12-10 per side (2 12 foot travel lanes, 2 ten foot shoulder lanes per side) if not more?
If so would this also become the real I-695 vs MD 695?
for 4-lane divided, the inside shoulders can be 6' preferred, 4' minimum.
So at the very least it will be 2 12 foot lanes per side, 4-6 foot inside and 10 foot outside shoulders?
Think they will just go ahead and give it a 3rd trade lane per side?
To the first question, I would hope yes, but then again, (1) it is not an Interstate albeit signed as one (officially MD-695), and (2) MDTA just built the new Nice Bridge with microscopic shoulders, so I wouldn't bet on it.
To the second question, (1) traffic counts really don't justify it (3x,000 AADT is pretty low, especially in MD), and (2) see above for MDTA's value engineering history.
Quote from: cockroachking on April 22, 2024, 09:58:35 AMQuote from: bluecountry on April 19, 2024, 07:56:50 PMQuote from: Big John on April 03, 2024, 01:28:39 AMQuote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 11:23:09 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2024, 07:30:26 PMI can pretty much guarantee the Key Bridge won't be rebuilt to the original design.
* When this happens with waterway crossings that have lost spans due to vessel collisions, typically a large fraction of the bridge has survived--this happened with the Tasman Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge_disaster) in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster), and the Queen Isabella Causeway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Isabella_Causeway) in Texas. The part of the Key Bridge that collapsed represents about half of the over-the-water length but probably at least 80% of the construction cost and nearly all of the complexity.
* Once the Port of Baltimore reopens, a lot of the pressure to "do something" about the bridge will vanish. The Key Bridge was one of three major crossings but represented just one-quarter of the capacity. It contributed a smaller share of the total MdTA revenue pie than the Harbor Tunnel (7% versus 12% (https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Files/Financial_Forecast/Final%20MDTA%20FY%202023%20Traffic%20and%20Revenue%20Forecast%20Update%20Report%20(11-02-2022).pdf)) despite their having the same lane count. The absence of the bridge does not even inconvenience local commuters that much, since the Harbor Tunnel is a relatively close detour. (The Tasman Bridge is a useful counterexample--its collapse in 1975 turned a five-minute journey from one end of the bridge to the other into a 45-minute trip involving the Bridgewater Bridge much further upstream. This situation led not only to provision of a temporary ferry, but also construction of the Bowen Bridge midway between the repaired bridge and the erstwhile detour to improve network redundancy.) It is the ruins of the bridge blocking the shipping channel, and not its unavailability to road traffic, that really drives costs.
* To rebuild the Key Bridge as-is would be to recreate its safety deficiencies (no shoulders) and its vulnerabilities (piers that cannot be protected without impinging on the shipping channel). I believe this would be politically completely unacceptable, especially with the precedent set by the Sunshine Skyway. No politician is going to want to go before the voters and say, "Well, in Florida they can rebuild with better defenses, but here in Maryland we're just going to have to go with the cheap solution that is not actually all that cheap and eat the risks associated with it."
So you would expect the replacement bridge, at the very least, would be 10-12-12-10_10-12-12-10 per side (2 12 foot travel lanes, 2 ten foot shoulder lanes per side) if not more?
If so would this also become the real I-695 vs MD 695?
for 4-lane divided, the inside shoulders can be 6' preferred, 4' minimum.
So at the very least it will be 2 12 foot lanes per side, 4-6 foot inside and 10 foot outside shoulders?
Think they will just go ahead and give it a 3rd trade lane per side?
To the first question, I would hope yes, but then again, (1) it is not an Interstate albeit signed as one (officially MD-695), and (2) MDTA just built the new Nice Bridge with microscopic shoulders, so I wouldn't bet on it.
To the second question, (1) traffic counts really don't justify it (3x,000 AADT is pretty low, especially in MD), and (2) see above for MDTA's value engineering history.
Given the heavy truck traffic, it might be worth three lanes, even with the lower AADT. The old bridge prohibited passing by trucks because of the uphill grade. Adding a third lane would allow slower trucks to not obstruct both cars and non-loaded trucks that can travel faster.
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 22, 2024, 12:18:23 PMQuote from: cockroachking on April 22, 2024, 09:58:35 AMQuote from: bluecountry on April 19, 2024, 07:56:50 PMQuote from: Big John on April 03, 2024, 01:28:39 AMQuote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 11:23:09 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2024, 07:30:26 PMI can pretty much guarantee the Key Bridge won't be rebuilt to the original design.
* When this happens with waterway crossings that have lost spans due to vessel collisions, typically a large fraction of the bridge has survived--this happened with the Tasman Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge_disaster) in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster), and the Queen Isabella Causeway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Isabella_Causeway) in Texas. The part of the Key Bridge that collapsed represents about half of the over-the-water length but probably at least 80% of the construction cost and nearly all of the complexity.
* Once the Port of Baltimore reopens, a lot of the pressure to "do something" about the bridge will vanish. The Key Bridge was one of three major crossings but represented just one-quarter of the capacity. It contributed a smaller share of the total MdTA revenue pie than the Harbor Tunnel (7% versus 12% (https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Files/Financial_Forecast/Final%20MDTA%20FY%202023%20Traffic%20and%20Revenue%20Forecast%20Update%20Report%20(11-02-2022).pdf)) despite their having the same lane count. The absence of the bridge does not even inconvenience local commuters that much, since the Harbor Tunnel is a relatively close detour. (The Tasman Bridge is a useful counterexample--its collapse in 1975 turned a five-minute journey from one end of the bridge to the other into a 45-minute trip involving the Bridgewater Bridge much further upstream. This situation led not only to provision of a temporary ferry, but also construction of the Bowen Bridge midway between the repaired bridge and the erstwhile detour to improve network redundancy.) It is the ruins of the bridge blocking the shipping channel, and not its unavailability to road traffic, that really drives costs.
* To rebuild the Key Bridge as-is would be to recreate its safety deficiencies (no shoulders) and its vulnerabilities (piers that cannot be protected without impinging on the shipping channel). I believe this would be politically completely unacceptable, especially with the precedent set by the Sunshine Skyway. No politician is going to want to go before the voters and say, "Well, in Florida they can rebuild with better defenses, but here in Maryland we're just going to have to go with the cheap solution that is not actually all that cheap and eat the risks associated with it."
So you would expect the replacement bridge, at the very least, would be 10-12-12-10_10-12-12-10 per side (2 12 foot travel lanes, 2 ten foot shoulder lanes per side) if not more?
If so would this also become the real I-695 vs MD 695?
for 4-lane divided, the inside shoulders can be 6' preferred, 4' minimum.
So at the very least it will be 2 12 foot lanes per side, 4-6 foot inside and 10 foot outside shoulders?
Think they will just go ahead and give it a 3rd trade lane per side?
To the first question, I would hope yes, but then again, (1) it is not an Interstate albeit signed as one (officially MD-695), and (2) MDTA just built the new Nice Bridge with microscopic shoulders, so I wouldn't bet on it.
To the second question, (1) traffic counts really don't justify it (3x,000 AADT is pretty low, especially in MD), and (2) see above for MDTA's value engineering history.
Given the heavy truck traffic, it might be worth three lanes, even with the lower AADT. The old bridge prohibited passing by trucks because of the uphill grade. Adding a third lane would allow slower trucks to not obstruct both cars and non-loaded trucks that can travel faster.
While it would be nice to have a third lane each way, the same problem that the old bridge suffered will be present on the new bridge as well: it'll have the steep climb over the river necessary to let ships and barges pass underneath, and I still believe it'll be rebuilt the same way that the Sunshine Skyway was. I can't help but wonder how Baltimore's citizens would feel about a new cable-stayed bridge on the Beltway...
I've been hearing stories that the new bridge will not be named the Francis Scott Key Bridge due to a second verse of his poem that became our nation's anthem. Apparently the song we recite at ball games etc, has more lyrics to it that we never sing as well as even know about.
I don't know what they are as it's news to me that the anthem even had another verse. However MD lawmakers are listening to public opinion already not to rename the bridge its existing name.
I can't seem to find what the controversy about that verse is though. For example, the Wikipedia article about the song doesn't mention any lyrics being controversial.
The name will almost certainly be changed. Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, and he was also a lawyer who fought to preserve slavery in court. On the other side of that, Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass were both born (as slaves) in Maryland.
Quote from: cockroachking on April 22, 2024, 09:58:35 AMTo the first question, I would hope yes, but then again, (1) it is not an Interstate albeit signed as one (officially MD-695), and (2) MDTA just built the new Nice Bridge with microscopic shoulders, so I wouldn't bet on it.
To the second question, (1) traffic counts really don't justify it (3x,000 AADT is pretty low, especially in MD), and (2) see above for MDTA's value engineering history.
Also, (3) the less the difference between the footprint of the new bridge and the footprint of the old bridge, the simpler the environmental approval process is (especially as this is an emergency replacement, so there are waivers to many requirements if they rebuild largely in kind).
Quote from: roadman65 on April 22, 2024, 04:20:19 PMI've been hearing stories that the new bridge will not be named the Francis Scott Key Bridge due to a second verse of his poem that became our nation's anthem. Apparently the song we recite at ball games etc, has more lyrics to it that we never sing as well as even know about.
I don't know what they are as it's news to me that the anthem even had another verse. However MD lawmakers are listening to public opinion already not to rename the bridge its existing name.
Pfft. Hymnals contain all verses of the anthem.
It's the third verse of the Star-Spangled Banner that's controversial, not the second.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 22, 2024, 04:20:19 PMI've been hearing stories that the new bridge will not be named the Francis Scott Key Bridge due to a second verse of his poem that became our nation's anthem. Apparently the song we recite at ball games etc, has more lyrics to it that we never sing as well as even know about.
I don't know what they are as it's news to me that the anthem even had another verse. However MD lawmakers are listening to public opinion already not to rename the bridge its existing name.
The "song"/tune is older than Key's poem that is sang to the tune.
I was taught in HS music/band class that the song is an old British drinking song, of all things. I've done some quick google checks when bored...apparently during the Revolutionary War period, there were differing lyrics to the tune for the Crown Loyalists and the Rebels->Patriots
I've never done a deep dive into the history of the tune, tho. No idea how old it actually is
It's like the song My Maryland is the tune of the Christmas Carol O Tannenbaum. They write lyrics and apply them to old songs.
Even the Christmas song isn't original as it was originally "Lauriger Horatius" the melody of.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 22, 2024, 11:04:40 PMIt's like the song My Maryland is the tune of the Christmas Carol O Tannenbaum. They write lyrics and apply them to old songs.
And "The Red Flag" as well, which is the anthem of a political party in the UK.
If you want a controversial song, try "My Old Kentucky Home."
Quote from: roadman65 on April 22, 2024, 04:20:19 PMI've been hearing stories that the new bridge will not be named the Francis Scott Key Bridge due to a second verse of his poem that became our nation's anthem. Apparently the song we recite at ball games etc, has more lyrics to it that we never sing as well as even know about.
I don't know what they are as it's news to me that the anthem even had another verse. However MD lawmakers are listening to public opinion already not to rename the bridge its existing name.
I doubt it'll surprise anyone to hear that I know the words to all four verses.
If you've never heard the whole anthem performed and you have eleven minutes, here you go.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 22, 2024, 07:10:59 PMI can't seem to find what the controversy about that verse is though. For example, the Wikipedia article about the song doesn't mention any lyrics being controversial.
Towards the bottom of the wikipedia article there's a Protests section where it's covered in quite a bit of detail.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 22, 2024, 07:11:50 PMThe name will almost certainly be changed. Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, and he was also a lawyer who fought to preserve slavery in court. On the other side of that, Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass were both born (as slaves) in Maryland.
There is already a bridge named after Frederick Douglass,
not in Maryland though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass%E2%80%93Susan_B._Anthony_Memorial_Bridge).
Quote from: webny99 on April 23, 2024, 08:57:52 AMQuote from: ran4sh on April 22, 2024, 07:10:59 PMI can't seem to find what the controversy about that verse is though. For example, the Wikipedia article about the song doesn't mention any lyrics being controversial.
Towards the bottom of the wikipedia article there's a Protests section where it's covered in quite a bit of detail.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 22, 2024, 07:11:50 PMThe name will almost certainly be changed. Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, and he was also a lawyer who fought to preserve slavery in court. On the other side of that, Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass were both born (as slaves) in Maryland.
There is already a bridge named after Frederick Douglass, not in Maryland though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass%E2%80%93Susan_B._Anthony_Memorial_Bridge).
There's one a lot closer: the bridge in DC previously known as the South Capital St. Bridge. But still not in MD. Nothing wrong with more than one structure being named after someone.
^^^^
The old bridge in DC was also known as the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge; it received that name in 1965. As you note, when it opened in 1950 it was the South Capitol Street Bridge.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 22, 2024, 11:46:44 PMQuote from: roadman65 on April 22, 2024, 11:04:40 PMIt's like the song My Maryland is the tune of the Christmas Carol O Tannenbaum. They write lyrics and apply them to old songs.
And "The Red Flag" as well, which is the anthem of a political party in the UK.
Then we have My Country, Tis of Thee, which is basically an Americanized version of God Save the King/Queen.
Also, Greensleeves lent its tune to the Christmas carol What Child is This?
Quote from: roadman65 on April 22, 2024, 04:20:19 PMI've been hearing stories that the new bridge will not be named the Francis Scott Key Bridge due to a second verse of his poem that became our nation's anthem. Apparently the song we recite at ball games etc, has more lyrics to it that we never sing as well as even know about.
I don't know what they are as it's news to me that the anthem even had another verse. However MD lawmakers are listening to public opinion already not to rename the bridge its existing name.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 22, 2024, 07:11:50 PMThe name will almost certainly be changed. Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, and he was also a lawyer who fought to preserve slavery in court. On the other side of that, Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass were both born (as slaves) in Maryland.
If the new bridge won't be called the Francis Scott Key Bridge, what other name could it be? And is there a similar movement in DC to rename its own Key Bridge?
Quote from: davewiecking on April 23, 2024, 09:06:46 AMQuote from: webny99 on April 23, 2024, 08:57:52 AMQuote from: ran4sh on April 22, 2024, 07:10:59 PMI can't seem to find what the controversy about that verse is though. For example, the Wikipedia article about the song doesn't mention any lyrics being controversial.
Towards the bottom of the wikipedia article there's a Protests section where it's covered in quite a bit of detail.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 22, 2024, 07:11:50 PMThe name will almost certainly be changed. Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, and he was also a lawyer who fought to preserve slavery in court. On the other side of that, Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass were both born (as slaves) in Maryland.
There is already a bridge named after Frederick Douglass, not in Maryland though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass%E2%80%93Susan_B._Anthony_Memorial_Bridge).
There's one a lot closer: the bridge in DC previously known as the South Capital St. Bridge. But still not in MD. Nothing wrong with more than one structure being named after someone.
Besides the Douglass Bridge in DC (and the one in Rochester [shared with Miss Anthony] and the one on MD 528 on the way from Denton to Easton, and the highway MD 33 between Easton and Tilghman Island), the new Amtrak tunnel nw of dt Baltimore (when it eventually happens) will have Fred's name.
Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court justice, was born in Baltimore.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 23, 2024, 05:52:36 PMThurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court justice, was born in Baltimore.
See airport...
There's always Spiro Agnew...
[/sarcasm]
Basically we are going through a change in demographics. The same demographics that define popular music and radio format is happening. It's just you got a change in culture to go with it either due to technology or the fact we have other things that are out there that are making the race evolve.
I'm not going to speculate about the other things as there are way too many theories and explanations. My good friend told me once to just live your live and trust that in our old age, children's or grandchildren's lives we will see it get stabilized. Right now there is way too much important stuff to tend to than to theorize on what is the blame ( or who to blame)as there are more theories out there than there are people in the world so it seems.
That's why I ignore social media because too many theorizing on what's happening in this world on that.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 23, 2024, 11:57:03 PMBasically we are going through a change in demographics. The same demographics that define popular music and radio format is happening. It's just you got a change in culture to go with it either due to technology or the fact we have other things that are out there that are making the race evolve.
I'm not going to speculate about the other things as there are way too many theories and explanations. My good friend told me once to just live your live and trust that in our old age, children's or grandchildren's lives we will see it get stabilized. Right now there is way too much important stuff to tend to than to theorize on what is the blame ( or who to blame)as there are more theories out there than there are people in the world so it seems.
That's why I ignore social media because too many theorizing on what's happening in this world on that.
Wut.
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2024, 07:06:36 AMQuote from: roadman65 on April 23, 2024, 11:57:03 PMBasically we are going through a change in demographics. The same demographics that define popular music and radio format is happening. It's just you got a change in culture to go with it either due to technology or the fact we have other things that are out there that are making the race evolve.
I'm not going to speculate about the other things as there are way too many theories and explanations. My good friend told me once to just live your live and trust that in our old age, children's or grandchildren's lives we will see it get stabilized. Right now there is way too much important stuff to tend to than to theorize on what is the blame ( or who to blame)as there are more theories out there than there are people in the world so it seems.
That's why I ignore social media because too many theorizing on what's happening in this world on that.
Wut.
In simple words:
Old farts like us are used to work.
So - Go and do your work, let younger guys take care of the rest. You'll be fine, don't worry.
Quote from: kalvado on April 24, 2024, 08:04:39 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 24, 2024, 07:06:36 AMQuote from: roadman65 on April 23, 2024, 11:57:03 PMBasically we are going through a change in demographics. The same demographics that define popular music and radio format is happening. It's just you got a change in culture to go with it either due to technology or the fact we have other things that are out there that are making the race evolve.
I'm not going to speculate about the other things as there are way too many theories and explanations. My good friend told me once to just live your live and trust that in our old age, children's or grandchildren's lives we will see it get stabilized. Right now there is way too much important stuff to tend to than to theorize on what is the blame ( or who to blame)as there are more theories out there than there are people in the world so it seems.
That's why I ignore social media because too many theorizing on what's happening in this world on that.
Wut.
In simple words:
Old farts like us are used to work.
So - Go and do your work, let younger guys take care of the rest. You'll be fine, don't worry.
And how is this related to the Key Bridge?
Kind of a convoluted way to just say, "I disagree with younger generations on what is offensive and what isn't, but I'm not going to let them bother me."
Until there is something formal announced about a name change for a replacement bridge, let's move on from that speculation, Francis Scott Key's legacy, and also philosophical concepts involving demographics.
Rename it to the George Herman Ruth Bridge.
The Babe was born in Baltimore.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 24, 2024, 10:34:21 AMRename it to the George Herman Ruth Bridge.
The Babe was born in Baltimore.
Step 1: rebuild the bridge...
Quote from: Alex on April 24, 2024, 10:03:43 AMUntil there is something formal announced about a name change for a replacement bridge, let's move on from that speculation, Francis Scott Key's legacy, and also philosophical concepts involving demographics.
Half an hour later....
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 24, 2024, 10:34:21 AMRename it to the George Herman Ruth Bridge.
The Babe was born in Baltimore.
Not sure whether that warrants a :-D or a :banghead: .
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2024, 11:21:59 AMQuote from: Alex on April 24, 2024, 10:03:43 AMUntil there is something formal announced about a name change for a replacement bridge, let's move on from that speculation, Francis Scott Key's legacy, and also philosophical concepts involving demographics.
Half an hour later....
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 24, 2024, 10:34:21 AMRename it to the George Herman Ruth Bridge.
The Babe was born in Baltimore.
Not sure whether that warrants a :-D or a :banghead: .
More like a :pan:
But as Alex said, there's no word on when the new bridge will have a different name, so let's just assume that it'll also be called the Key Bridge. After all, President Biden did say they were going to rebuild it, so there we have it.
All the GSV imagery from the bridge has been removed. The previous workaround of dragging the stick man to where the bridge used to be no longer works, and you can no longer advance onto the bridge from within GSV itself.
Not sure what the point of removing the images is? The bridge did in fact exist and the right of way seemingly will be reused.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 26, 2024, 02:05:06 PMNot sure what the point of removing the images is? The bridge did in fact exist and the right of way seemingly will be reused.
Not sure what the point of keeping the images would be? The bridge no longer exist and images have no value except for historic and nostalgia - hence useless for most maps users. .
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ey7BkiFK7tCazopP8
It still works for me.
Quote from: kalvado on April 26, 2024, 02:57:28 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 26, 2024, 02:05:06 PMNot sure what the point of removing the images is? The bridge did in fact exist and the right of way seemingly will be reused.
Not sure what the point of keeping the images would be? The bridge no longer exist and images have no value except for historic and nostalgia - hence useless for most maps users. .
And how is that ultimately different than like images of the countless number of bridges that have been replaced since GSV started? I was just using old GSV images the other day to look at components of a bridge which was razed in 2014. Given I was writing an article about said crossing it certainly had value to me.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 26, 2024, 03:02:23 PMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/Ey7BkiFK7tCazopP8
It still works for me.
If you try to advance to the point where the road ends on the map, it won't let you go further.
Quote from: Henry on April 24, 2024, 10:02:30 PMBut as Alex said, there's no word on when the new bridge will have a different name, so let's just assume that it'll also be called the Key Bridge.
It would be funny if they named it after John Locke.