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

[bing101]

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.

[Life in Paradise]

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.

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integrity-like Francis Scott Key Bridge) and either update or replace them and some may not be needed at all (superceded US routes).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.

[epzik8]

This 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.

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

This 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.

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

[SteveG1988]

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.

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.

[tdindy88]

I 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.

[roadman65]

I 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.

[Joe The Dragon]

I 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.

[vdeane]

I 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.

[TheOneKEA]

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?

FWIW, the zero milepost is actually at the Curtis Creek drawbridge (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.

[Henry]

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):



That is, unless such is considered taboo nowadays, as the sign is no longer there. 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.

[ixnay]

Does MD 695 receive *any* Federal funding, at least for the SHA portion thereof?

[Rothman]

Does 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.

[bluecountry]

So I wonder when the replacement bridge is built, will they have more lanes, or at the very least, have full shoulders?

[bwana39]

So 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.

[Henry]

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.

[Rothman]

So 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.

[RobbieL2415]

So 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.

[jeffandnicole]

So 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.

[Rothman]

So 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.

[J N Winkler]

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 in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma, and the 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%) 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."

[jeffandnicole]

*  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.

[bluecountry]

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 in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma, and the 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%) 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.

[bwana39]

I 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. )

[Big John]

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 in Australia, I-40 at Webbers Falls in Oklahoma, and the 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%) 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.