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=974fac83c39cf732885815299c985a9aab98cb68)
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=974fac83c39cf732885815299c985a9aab98cb68)
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=974fac83c39cf732885815299c985a9aab98cb68)
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=974fac83c39cf732885815299c985a9aab98cb68)
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 27, 2024, 07:15:31 AMQuote 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.
Why?
Quote from: ixnay on April 28, 2024, 07:57:35 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 27, 2024, 07:15:31 AMQuote 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.
Why?
It's not that funny, but think about it.
If we're gonna go for an uncontroversial name, might as well go for a fictional character.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 28, 2024, 08:55:58 AMIf we're gonna go for an uncontroversial name, might as well go for a fictional character.
Some of us still miss Triborogh and Tappan Zee bridges....
Quote from: kalvado on April 28, 2024, 10:06:56 AMQuote from: LilianaUwU on April 28, 2024, 08:55:58 AMIf we're gonna go for an uncontroversial name, might as well go for a fictional character.
Some of us still miss Triborogh and Tappan Zee bridges....
They're still the Triborough and Tappan Zee Bridges. No amount of trying to officially name the bridges after politicians will change that.
I think there is a slender possibility that MdTA will want a new name for the Key Bridge replacement just so that the two-letter facility abbreviation, which typically appears in contract numbers, does not match that of a structure that no longer exists. This would be comparable to how the Thruway Authority (which acronymizes not just major structures but also geographic divisions through which the mainline Thruway passes) uses "GMMCB" to reference the current Tappan Zee crossing.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 28, 2024, 08:55:58 AMIf we're gonna go for an uncontroversial name, might as well go for a fictional character.
The Avatar Kyoshi (https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/Kyoshi) Memorial Skyway? Although I like the design of Kyoshi Bridge (https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/Kyoshi_Bridge) in Republic City better than the cable-stayed mania the US is currently under.
The Edgar Allen Poe Bridge.
Murder out the trusses.
Quote from: Road Hog on April 28, 2024, 11:06:08 PMThe Edgar Allen Poe Bridge.
Murder out the trusses.
Trusses cause an unkindness.
(Ravens are not crows)
Quote from: Road Hog on April 28, 2024, 11:06:08 PMThe Edgar Allen Poe Bridge.
Murder out the trusses.
Just make sure Montresor isn't involved in building the bridge piers, he might lure in an unsuspecting worker with a cask of Amontillado.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 27, 2024, 07:15:31 AMQuote 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.
"Locke" and "Key" made me think of a certain Madonna video from the mid-1980s, so now I have this utterly absurd thought of the "Open Your Heart Bridge."
Name it the Sinnead O' Connor Bridge, as she protested against it at the PNC Arts Center in Holmdel, NJ as that venue treats rock concerts like the MBL treats the ball games. You have to stand up and listen to the Anthem played while standing up looking at the flag under the spotlight.
She refused upright to have it done during her concert and sparks flew then.
Or name it the Norman Lear Bridge for first introducing the controversy of the hymn in one of his All In The Family episodes. He had his writers come up with dialogue for Archie and Meathead to argue the song and write lines for the Meathead to oppose the song.
:bigass:
How about we rename it the "let's get back to talking about the Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) complete collapse after large ship hits it and save any bridge renaming talk for Fictional Highways." The bridge is not going to be renamed, and I personally have had enough with the renaming talk (I'm probably not the only one).
I'll gladly take pondering over new names versus some of the nut job conspiracy theories I've seen related to the collapse.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 29, 2024, 03:01:19 PMHow about we rename it the "let's get back to talking about the Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) complete collapse after large ship hits it and save any bridge renaming talk for Fictional Highways." The bridge is not going to be renamed, and I personally have had enough with the renaming talk (I'm probably not the only one).
Why won't it? And at this point, what should we talk about in this thread?
The latest update from the Unified Command last Thursday was the opening of a temporary channel 35 feet in depth, primarily to allow ships trapped at the port since the collapse to finally depart. Based on the wording of the release, it sounds like the channel is already closed off again as of today in preparation for the big upcoming task of lifting the truss off the bow of the Dali and then finally refloating the Dali.
https://www.keybridgeresponse2024.com/post/update-15-unified-command-opens-limited-access-deep-draft-channel
The other big announcement from last week is an upcoming virtual forum on May 7th for the upcoming rebuild, which has its own website now: https://keybridgerebuild.com/. The biggest initial takeaways I'm seeing are that the Request for Proposals is expected to be released by the end of May, and the chosen delivery method is progressive design-build (I admittedly need to do some research on the difference between progressive design-build and regular design-build, but presumably it'll allow things to go even faster than regular design-build).
I found this source for comparing PDB vs. regular DB:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0361198118822315
In a regular DB project, a DOT knows clearly what it wants to build, say a bypass. PDB is appropriate if you're not sure exactly what you want to build and you need a contractor who can help first with the concept phase and then progress to the design phase and finally to the construction phase.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 29, 2024, 06:11:57 PMI found this source for comparing PDB vs. regular DB:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0361198118822315
In a regular DB project, a DOT knows clearly what it wants to build, say a bypass. PDB is appropriate if you're not sure exactly what you want to build and you need a contractor who can help first with the concept phase and then progress to the design phase and finally to the construction phase.
Yikes. Next thing you know, there will be a preferred list for those contractors, too. DB on freakin' steroids.
As a mentor of mine said, "DB means getting the project done twice as fast for twice the price." And now, you want the consultant to do scoping and phases I-IV? Market competition is becoming an oxymoron.
There is also this explainer:
https://www.keybridgerebuild.com/images/resources/Deeper-Dive-Progressive-Design-Build-2023-pidtpk.pdf
Essentially, progressive design-build has the contractor take the design to roughly the 40% to 60% stage, the point at which conventional design-build usually begins.
Design build is pretty much ubiquitous in Louisiana. In Texas it is fairly common FIGG was doing design build on both the Beltway 8 ship channel bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15429.0) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25100.msg2419951#msg2419951)
as well as the new Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11684.0)
Quote from: bwana39 on April 30, 2024, 08:55:11 AMDesign build is pretty much ubiquitous in Louisiana. In Texas it is fairly common. FIGG was doing design build on both the Beltway 8 ship channel bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15429.0) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25100.msg2419951#msg2419951) as well as the new Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11684.0).
AIUI, as a result of its involvement in the FIU bridge collapse, Figg is debarred from working on federally funded projects until 2029. (As the company is named after its founder, structural engineer Eugene C. Figg, I refuse to go along with the all-uppercase branding.)
They ought to tear down the fucking bridge right now, and build a new one in its place; the remainder doesn't look safe to me, not even as a fishing pier.
Quote from: Henry on April 30, 2024, 09:59:20 PMThey ought to tear down the fucking bridge right now, and build a new one in its place; the remainder doesn't look safe to me, not even as a fishing pier.
I'll take the opinion of the teams working on the bridge over this rash statement.
Quote from: Henry on April 30, 2024, 09:59:20 PMThey ought to tear down the fucking bridge right now, and build a new one in its place; the remainder doesn't look safe to me, not even as a fishing pier.
How was the remainder of the bridge affected by the collapse? The pier hit was holding up the structure that collapsed. The approaches were unaffected.
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.
1. 301 was not part of the interstate system as I-695.
2. I would think since the Federal government is funding this now they would make this up to full interstate design.
Quote from: bluecountry on May 01, 2024, 11:33:21 PM1. 301 was not part of the interstate system as I-695.
2. I would think since the Federal government is funding this now they would make this up to full interstate design.
1. Nor was MD-695.
2. That may very well be the case. We'll just have to wait and see. But I won't be surprised if it isn't.
Despite the link wording, this article is about more than just the recovery of the 5th worker:
https://wtop.com/baltimore/2024/05/body-of-5th-missing-worker-found-more-than-a-month-after-baltimore-bridge-collapse-officials-say/
Most interesting thing from my point of view is that the bridge was insured by Chubb Insurance, who is about to make a $350 million payment to Maryland-expected to be the first of several payments.
Also an interview with Transpo Secy Weidefeld, who should probably be advised by someone about the above insurance payment:
https://wtop.com/baltimore/2024/05/it-is-a-very-aggressive-time-frame-md-transportation-secretary-elaborates-on-plan-to-rebuild-key-bridge/
Quote from: davewiecking on May 02, 2024, 07:15:42 PMDespite the link wording, this article is about more than just the recovery of the 5th worker:
https://wtop.com/baltimore/2024/05/body-of-5th-missing-worker-found-more-than-a-month-after-baltimore-bridge-collapse-officials-say/
This confirms our suspicions that the new bridge will be built on the exact same alignment as the old one:
QuoteOn Thursday morning, crews were preparing for a controlled demolition that will break down the largest remaining span and send it tumbling into the water. Then a massive hydraulic grabber will lift the resulting sections of steel onto barges.
The hydraulic grabber, which officials have called the largest in the country, was also in motion Thursday morning. Moving ever so slowly, the giant claw descended into the depths of the Patapsco River and emerged with a steel beam in its trusses. It was operating in tandem with the Chesapeake 1000, one of the largest cranes on the Eastern Seaboard.
Seeing that a toll gantry went up in 2020, it wouldn't be wise to move it anyway. So they'll blow up the whole thing and reuse the surface approaches for the new bridge. Which brings us back to the previous thought:
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.
It looks like the second one will happen, based on the news development above. Four years is optimistic, and I'm still holding out hope for a cable-stayed replacement, as truss bridges are now a thing of the past.
They're looking at an aggressive timeline to replace the bridge. They think they can have a new bridge up by 2028!
Even relaxing "safeguards" within DOT bureaucratic processes can speed things up considerably, especially if your local FHWA division is persuaded to be more lenient than usual...
(personal opinion emphasized)
Honestly, the article doesn't have much to it, but apparently, an Italian company is putting out a proposal to rebuild the Key Bridge. That's basically the whole article, no information on estimated time or cost.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/italys-webuild-sends-proposal-rebuild-collapsed-baltimore-bridge-2024-05-03/
Quote from: Henry on May 02, 2024, 10:22:56 PMIt looks like the second one will happen, based on the news development above. Four years is optimistic, and I'm still holding out hope for a cable-stayed replacement, as truss bridges are now a thing of the past.
It seems inevitable that a cable-stayed bridge would be used. If so, I'd like to see the new one incorporate an arch design into it to evoke the former bridge.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on May 03, 2024, 08:17:49 AMIt seems inevitable that a cable-stayed bridge would be used. If so, I'd like to see the new one incorporate an arch design into it to evoke the former bridge.
How about a tied arch bridge like the Crown Point Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Champlain_Bridge_(2011%E2%80%93present))?
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2024, 09:10:33 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on May 03, 2024, 08:17:49 AMIt seems inevitable that a cable-stayed bridge would be used. If so, I'd like to see the new one incorporate an arch design into it to evoke the former bridge.
How about a tied arch bridge like the Crown Point Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Champlain_Bridge_(2011%E2%80%93present))?
Yeah, that's what I was thinking about. Or something like the Margaret McDermott Bridge in Dallas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_McDermott_Bridge#/media/File:MMB_Dallas_Nima2.jpg
Quote from: PColumbus73 on May 03, 2024, 09:45:26 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 03, 2024, 09:10:33 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on May 03, 2024, 08:17:49 AMIt seems inevitable that a cable-stayed bridge would be used. If so, I'd like to see the new one incorporate an arch design into it to evoke the former bridge.
How about a tied arch bridge like the Crown Point Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Champlain_Bridge_(2011%E2%80%93present))?
Yeah, that's what I was thinking about. Or something like the Margaret McDermott Bridge in Dallas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_McDermott_Bridge#/media/File:MMB_Dallas_Nima2.jpg
Those are some great suggestions (especially since the Crown Point Bridge also replaced a continuous truss bridge over Lake Champlain), but still, it looks like my preference will be built after the severed parts of the old bridge have been blown up.
How much shipping is there in Lake Champlain? Or in Dallas? /s
Quote from: GaryV on May 04, 2024, 07:31:31 AMHow much shipping is there in Lake Champlain?
A canal connects Lake Champlain with the Hudson River. Lake Champlain flows northward into the Richelieu River, which flows into the St. Lawrence below Montreal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Champlain_Seaway
QuoteOr in Dallas? /s
The McDermott Bridge, which looks like Dallas's version of the Big Mac on I-471 in Cincinnati, spans the flood plain of the shallow Trinity River.
https://tinyurl.com/mwk69nrm
Quote from: ixnay on May 04, 2024, 05:20:33 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 04, 2024, 07:31:31 AMHow much shipping is there in Lake Champlain?
A canal connects Lake Champlain with the Hudson River. Lake Champlain flows northward into the Richelieu River, which flows into the St. Lawrence below Montreal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Champlain_Seaway
QuoteOr in Dallas? /s
The McDermott Bridge, which looks like Dallas's version of the Big Mac on I-471 in Cincinnati, spans the flood plain of the shallow Trinity River.
https://tinyurl.com/mwk69nrm
Have you seen Champlain canal, busting with traffic to the tune of 2 ships a day?
At least Erie canal has that Great Loop traffic...
Thanks for removing bridge street view Google.
Quote from: ixnay on May 04, 2024, 05:20:33 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 04, 2024, 07:31:31 AMHow much shipping is there in Lake Champlain?
A canal connects Lake Champlain with the Hudson River. Lake Champlain flows northward into the Richelieu River, which flows into the St. Lawrence below Montreal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Champlain_Seaway
QuoteOr in Dallas? /s
The McDermott Bridge, which looks like Dallas's version of the Big Mac on I-471 in Cincinnati, spans the flood plain of the shallow Trinity River.
https://tinyurl.com/mwk69nrm
Exactly. Small boats and barges, if anything. Not 1000 foot container ships needing high clearances.
If it is going to take 4 years they're going to need to address the traffic issues. Maybe they'll accelerate the hard shoulder running on the Beltway?
QuoteYeah, that's what I was thinking about. Or something like the Margaret McDermott Bridge in Dallas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_McDermott_Bridge#/media/File:MMB_Dallas_Nima2.jpg
The McDermott Bridge is only the bicycle lanes that are supported by the arch. On the nearby Hunt bridge, the bridge is a deck bridge with the arch aesthetic only.
The Federal Register is proposing the removal of the bridge from the National Network until it is rebuilt and the designation of the alternative route around the city
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-10025/emergency-temporary-closure-segment-of-interstate-695-including-the-francis-scott-key-bridge-in
Quote from: MASTERNC on May 07, 2024, 08:15:37 PMThe Federal Register is proposing the removal of the bridge from the National Network until it is rebuilt and the designation of the alternative route around the city
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-10025/emergency-temporary-closure-segment-of-interstate-695-including-the-francis-scott-key-bridge-in
It's not the Federal Register proposing it, it's the Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Register is simply a government-wide compilation of agency rules, proposed rules, and notices.
Quote from: MASTERNC on May 07, 2024, 08:15:37 PMThe Federal Register is proposing the removal of the bridge from the National Network until it is rebuilt and the designation of the alternative route around the city
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-10025/emergency-temporary-closure-segment-of-interstate-695-including-the-francis-scott-key-bridge-in
There will be a public comment period once the document is officially published.
Everyone one this forum will be required to submit a comment "it's not I-695!"
Quote from: davewiecking on May 07, 2024, 09:16:38 PMQuote from: MASTERNC on May 07, 2024, 08:15:37 PMThe Federal Register is proposing the removal of the bridge from the National Network until it is rebuilt and the designation of the alternative route around the city
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-10025/emergency-temporary-closure-segment-of-interstate-695-including-the-francis-scott-key-bridge-in
There will be a public comment period once the document is officially published.
Everyone one this forum will be required to submit a comment "it's not I-695!"
Interestingly, it addresses that in a footnote.
What is the point in removing 695 from the National Network (is this the NHS or something else? It seems unclear) for a temporary closure?
Quote from: FHWAThe portion of I-695 that includes the Francis Scott Key Bridge is a part of the National Highway System
(NHS) and was officially incorporated into the Interstate System effective April 29, 2024
Interesting.
Quote from: vdeane on May 07, 2024, 09:26:46 PMWhat is the point in removing 695 from the National Network (is this the NHS or something else? It seems unclear) for a temporary closure?
...
It's something else, per the FHWA. (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/national_network.htm)
May I direct your attention to the new Key Bridge?
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/AQcJHUsV6A1zUoDz6q190A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTU0MA--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/world_construction_network_914/a53d9b986c38e01f29d6e9d14b1a2f41)
And here's the full story below, via the accompanying article (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/webuild-proposes-design-baltimore-francis-083109074.html):
QuoteWeBuild, with its US subsidiary Lane, has unveiled a proposal for the Francis Scott Key Bridge reconstruction design and planning in Baltimore.
The initiative follows the collapse of the bridge last March, which resulted in loss of lives and disrupted a crucial maritime connection.
WeBuild's proposal, a cable-stayed bridge design, has been developed in collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and architect Carlo Ratti and French structural engineer Michel Virlogeux.
This new structure is expected to ensure maximum safety for both vehicular traffic and navigation for larger ships, focusing on enhanced safety, adaptability, and sustainability.
The design anticipates a navigable clearance of 213ft, more than the previous bridge, and an expanded bridge span of approximately 2,300ft.
The main pylons are planned to be positioned in shallower waters, away from the navigation channel.
In response to increased traffic, the proposal includes a wider carriageway, adding one lane in each direction and expanding emergency lanes.
The new bridge will also incorporate smart features for improved traffic management and the application of predictive maintenance techniques.
Carlo Ratti said: "Opting for a cable-stayed solution enables the piles to be positioned at a safe distance, well away from the navigation channel used by large vessels and hence preventing the risk of a tragedy such as the one of March 26 happening again.
"This approach also provides a light-weight solution to reconnect two sides of Baltimore, both socially and economically - what American infrastructure should be striving to do in the 21st century."
The project will further include the use of materials that aim to preserve the Patapsco River's ecosystem.
Webuild CEO Pietro Salini said: "We will take part, on 7 May, in the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA)'s Virtual Industry Forum for the reconstruction of the bridge, and we are ready to help in any way we can at this stage in the spirit of pro bono service.
"The design concept of the bridge that we have been working on incessantly during this last month will represent a key contribution towards the design and reconstruction or new construction of the bridge."
Last month, Lane was awarded a $110m contract to construct the Newport News Segment of the Interstate (I)-64 Hampton Roads Express Lanes in Hampton, Virginia.
All 6 bodies have now been recovered. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/us/sixth-body-baltimore-bridge-collapse-recovered/index.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2024, 08:33:11 AMAll 6 bodies have now been recovered. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/us/sixth-body-baltimore-bridge-collapse-recovered/index.html
At least the families can get closure and give their loved ones a proper service.
Quote from: Henry on May 07, 2024, 10:07:03 PM(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/AQcJHUsV6A1zUoDz6q190A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTU0MA--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/world_construction_network_914/a53d9b986c38e01f29d6e9d14b1a2f41)
Even though it's just a first pitch by some entity, I have to imagine the eventual replacement will basically look like this.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 08, 2024, 11:50:03 AMQuote from: Henry on May 07, 2024, 10:07:03 PM(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/AQcJHUsV6A1zUoDz6q190A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTU0MA--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/world_construction_network_914/a53d9b986c38e01f29d6e9d14b1a2f41)
Even though it's just a first pitch by some entity, I have to imagine the eventual replacement will basically look like this.
Especially given the safety "lessons learned" will be to place the piers out of the shipping channel like this bridge would
Quote from: MASTERNC on May 08, 2024, 01:13:42 PMQuote from: triplemultiplex on May 08, 2024, 11:50:03 AMQuote from: Henry on May 07, 2024, 10:07:03 PM(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/AQcJHUsV6A1zUoDz6q190A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTU0MA--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/world_construction_network_914/a53d9b986c38e01f29d6e9d14b1a2f41)
Even though it's just a first pitch by some entity, I have to imagine the eventual replacement will basically look like this.
Especially given the safety "lessons learned" will be to place the piers out of the shipping channel like this bridge would
Yes, and a wider horizontal clearance will also allow ships and other boats to pass in each direction simultaneously. Or is just a narrow lane dredged to 50ft there? I'm on my phone, do anyone have a nautical chart handy they can post?
I think all remaining four-lane segments on the Baltimore Beltway should be expanded to six lanes. The four-lane segments may not be as heavily traveled as other segments of 695, but since the new bridge will be six lanes, the rest of the beltway should be at least six lanes as well.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2024, 02:48:38 PMI think all remaining four-lane segments on the Baltimore Beltway should be expanded to six lanes. The four-lane segments may not be as heavily traveled as other segments of 695, but since the new bridge will be six lanes, the rest of the beltway should be at least six lanes as well.
Widening the highway would be dependent on traffic volumes at those specific areas. The bridge's width has nothing to do with the width of the roadway elsewhere.
Quote from: plain on May 08, 2024, 01:43:07 PMYes, and a wider horizontal clearance will also allow ships and other boats to pass in each direction simultaneously. Or is just a narrow lane dredged to 50ft there? I'm on my phone, does anyone have a nautical chart handy they can post?
Here's an extract from the relevant nautical chart:
(https://i.imgur.com/zwRlpzs.png)
The shipping channel has a nominal width of 1100 feet and, per the legend (not included in this extract), a nominal depth of 50 feet. The chart does not otherwise specify the cross-section of the channel at the bridge.
The Unified Command has said, IIRC, that they do plan to clear it so that it can again handle two-way traffic.
The channel ran essentially from one inside face of one main pier to the inside face of the other. Increasing main span length would buy more margin for error by allowing the new piers and their defenses to be positioned well outside the area used for navigation. At Tampa Bay, the piers for the Sunshine Skyway are positioned on artificial islands that just border the channel (which is only 43 feet deep) on their inside edges.
Not sure it's enough but the MDTA is changing traffic patterns around the Harbor Tunnel tolls to improve merging into the tunnel.
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/key-bridge-collapse-causes-traffic-headaches-theres-a-plan-to-alleviate-congestion-baltimore-mdta-toll-county-patapsco-river/
Quote from: MASTERNC on May 10, 2024, 08:14:55 PMNot sure it's enough but the MDTA is changing traffic patterns around the Harbor Tunnel tolls to improve merging into the tunnel.
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/key-bridge-collapse-causes-traffic-headaches-theres-a-plan-to-alleviate-congestion-baltimore-mdta-toll-county-patapsco-river/
It also looks like Exit 44 on I-695 will reopen, along with the U-turn ramp, and it's going to be toll-free, since the bridge is no longer there but will be rebuilt in four years, if the timeline holds up.
Quote from: Henry on May 10, 2024, 10:21:30 PMQuote from: MASTERNC on May 10, 2024, 08:14:55 PMNot sure it's enough but the MDTA is changing traffic patterns around the Harbor Tunnel tolls to improve merging into the tunnel.
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/key-bridge-collapse-causes-traffic-headaches-theres-a-plan-to-alleviate-congestion-baltimore-mdta-toll-county-patapsco-river/
It also looks like Exit 44 on I-695 will reopen, along with the U-turn ramp, and it's going to be toll-free, since the bridge is no longer there but will be rebuilt in four years, if the timeline holds up.
The press release says it will be tolled starting 6/1
The largest truss section of the bridge has been detonated by controlled demolition:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/controlled-demolition-baltimore-bridge-collapse-173332066.html
As a result, the Dali is finally cleared of the debris that had been resting on its damaged area for about a month and a half.
Quote from: Henry on May 13, 2024, 10:32:24 PMThe largest truss section of the bridge has been detonated by controlled demolition:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/controlled-demolition-baltimore-bridge-collapse-173332066.html
As a result, the Dali is finally cleared of the debris that had been resting on its damaged area for about a month and a half.
Did not know the ship's crew was still on board over a month later.
Quote from: epzik8 on May 14, 2024, 07:29:12 AMQuote from: Henry on May 13, 2024, 10:32:24 PMThe largest truss section of the bridge has been detonated by controlled demolition:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/controlled-demolition-baltimore-bridge-collapse-173332066.html
As a result, the Dali is finally cleared of the debris that had been resting on its damaged area for about a month and a half.
Did not know the ship's crew was still on board over a month later.
Most likely they don't even have the paperwork to get ashore in US for extended period of time
Quote from: epzik8 on May 14, 2024, 07:29:12 AMDid not know the ship's crew was still on board over a month later.
Been several articles about local groups helping arrange for them to get food that more closely resembles what they're used to eating. In addition to the legal issues, they are needed to keep the ship's critical systems operating (at least better than the night they hit the bridge). What surprised me was that originally the harbor pilot and his trainee were also kept on board. They might still be there; I don't recall reading anything recent one way or the other.
I suspect the harbor pilot and his apprentice are still on board, possibly because they are operating under maritime law that does not give them the legal ability to step away even though the boat has been stuck, clearly unable to move, for over six weeks now.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2024, 09:23:52 PMQuote from: davewiecking on May 07, 2024, 09:16:38 PMQuote from: MASTERNC on May 07, 2024, 08:15:37 PMThe Federal Register is proposing the removal of the bridge from the National Network until it is rebuilt and the designation of the alternative route around the city
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-10025/emergency-temporary-closure-segment-of-interstate-695-including-the-francis-scott-key-bridge-in
There will be a public comment period once the document is officially published.
Everyone one this forum will be required to submit a comment "it's not I-695!"
Interestingly, it addresses that in a footnote.
Probably to make sure Maryland does not get to use the miles in its maintenance allocations from the feds.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 14, 2024, 11:04:44 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2024, 09:23:52 PMQuote from: davewiecking on May 07, 2024, 09:16:38 PMQuote from: MASTERNC on May 07, 2024, 08:15:37 PMThe Federal Register is proposing the removal of the bridge from the National Network until it is rebuilt and the designation of the alternative route around the city
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-10025/emergency-temporary-closure-segment-of-interstate-695-including-the-francis-scott-key-bridge-in
There will be a public comment period once the document is officially published.
Everyone one this forum will be required to submit a comment "it's not I-695!"
Interestingly, it addresses that in a footnote.
Probably to make sure Maryland does not get to use the miles in its maintenance allocations from the feds.
Feds haven't used updated miles to calculate apportionments in a decade. I believe MAP-21 was the last time and they've essentially just brought levels forward through percentages in the bills since.
Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2024, 06:23:51 PMQuote from: Henry on May 10, 2024, 10:21:30 PMQuote from: MASTERNC on May 10, 2024, 08:14:55 PMNot sure it's enough but the MDTA is changing traffic patterns around the Harbor Tunnel tolls to improve merging into the tunnel.
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/key-bridge-collapse-causes-traffic-headaches-theres-a-plan-to-alleviate-congestion-baltimore-mdta-toll-county-patapsco-river/
It also looks like Exit 44 on I-695 will reopen, along with the U-turn ramp, and it's going to be toll-free, since the bridge is no longer there but will be rebuilt in four years, if the timeline holds up.
The press release says it will be tolled starting 6/1
An updated release today notes that the Broening Highway turnaround, along with I-695 up to the turnaround, will reopen on Monday 5/20 (though the inner loop only will remain closed between exits 42 & 43 due to an unrelated project I had previously posted about). Interestingly, tolling will now remain suspended into June with the MDTA planning to "reassess the status" in late June. Wonder if there was some pushback to tolling the turnaround.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-traffic-advisories/updated-schedule-i-695broening-highway-interchange-reopens
Why was the turnaround tolled when you aren't even crossing the bridge? MdTA does this with I-895 Exit 9 as well. I can see push back because the toll is for a bridge that no longer exists.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 14, 2024, 11:04:44 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2024, 09:23:52 PMQuote from: davewiecking on May 07, 2024, 09:16:38 PMQuote from: MASTERNC on May 07, 2024, 08:15:37 PMThe Federal Register is proposing the removal of the bridge from the National Network until it is rebuilt and the designation of the alternative route around the city
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-10025/emergency-temporary-closure-segment-of-interstate-695-including-the-francis-scott-key-bridge-in
There will be a public comment period once the document is officially published.
Everyone one this forum will be required to submit a comment "it's not I-695!"
Interestingly, it addresses that in a footnote.
Probably to make sure Maryland does not get to use the miles in its maintenance allocations from the feds.
Injured reserve for bridges.
because it isn't just the Key Bridge that was tolled. The Bear Creek Bridge and Curtis Creek Bridges are also technically toll bridges. The toll road is 10.9 miles of bridges and approaches.
the WB toll road starts just west of MD 151 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/uf5CzX8gHtX4cRFs6), though you can go to MD 157 toll free.
the other end is just west of MD 10 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XQGjrvJBY8o735oz9) with multiple free exits before the toll EB.
Trucks who did the turnaround got a discounted rate vs. driving over the Key Bridge.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 15, 2024, 08:50:05 PMbecause it isn't just the Key Bridge that was tolled. The Bear Creek Bridge and Curtis Creek Bridges are also technically toll bridges. The toll road is 10.9 miles of bridges and approaches.
the WB toll road starts just west of MD 151 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/uf5CzX8gHtX4cRFs6), though you can go to MD 157 toll free.
the other end is just west of MD 10 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XQGjrvJBY8o735oz9) with multiple free exits before the toll EB.
Trucks who did the turnaround got a discounted rate vs. driving over the Key Bridge.
the discount was only for local ez-pass.
Now if they keep tolling it all users should get the discount.
Quote from: epzik8 on May 14, 2024, 07:29:12 AMQuote from: Henry on May 13, 2024, 10:32:24 PMThe largest truss section of the bridge has been detonated by controlled demolition:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/controlled-demolition-baltimore-bridge-collapse-173332066.html
As a result, the Dali is finally cleared of the debris that had been resting on its damaged area for about a month and a half.
Did not know the ship's crew was still on board over a month later.
Looks like visa paperwork is one reason, and another to maintain regular duties on the ship. I also heard on a TV news report that seafarers typically are at sea for 6 to 8 months.
Why is the Dali ship crew still stuck on board in the Baltimore Harbor? (https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-is-the-dali-ship-crew-still-stuck-on-board-in-the-baltimore-harbor-214450309.html)
QuoteWhy is the crew still on the boat?
On April 1, BBC reported that authorities said there were no plans to disembark the Dali's crew and it is unlikely any plan will be put in place unless the vessel is moved or taken out of the water. The Coast Guard said on March 29 that moving the ship is a second priority to reopening the Baltimore port and the shipping channel.
The BBC also reported that "even in normal circumstances, disembarking crews of foreign nationals from ships in U.S. ports requires significant paperwork." Twenty of the crew are citizens of India and one is from Sri Lanka.
The crew members would need visas and valid shore passes to allow them off the ship and require escorts to take them from the ship to the terminal gate, according to the BBC. It is not clear whether the crew has this required paperwork.
A representative from the Maryland Port Authority's Key Bridge response team told Futurism that the crew is also still "engaged in maintaining the current status of the ship" as the NTSB and Coast Guard continue their investigation.
"The crew is busy with their normal duties on the ship as well as assisting the NTSB and Coast Guard investigators on board," Dali management spokesman, William Marks, told the Washington Post.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 15, 2024, 07:29:54 PMWhy was the turnaround tolled when you aren't even crossing the bridge? MdTA does this with I-895 Exit 9 as well. I can see push back because the toll is for a bridge that no longer exists.
A more recent update indicates they are holding off on reinstating tolls. Start date is now TBD.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 15, 2024, 07:29:54 PMWhy was the turnaround tolled when you aren't even crossing the bridge? MdTA does this with I-895 Exit 9 as well. I can see push back because the toll is for a bridge that no longer exists.
At least that problem doesn't exist on the Chicago Skyway. It's set up like I-895, but there are no exits until you've crossed the bridge
and paid the toll. ISTHA really did their homework on that one.
Quote from: Alex on May 16, 2024, 08:15:18 AMQuote from: epzik8 on May 14, 2024, 07:29:12 AMQuote from: Henry on May 13, 2024, 10:32:24 PMThe largest truss section of the bridge has been detonated by controlled demolition:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/controlled-demolition-baltimore-bridge-collapse-173332066.html
As a result, the Dali is finally cleared of the debris that had been resting on its damaged area for about a month and a half.
Did not know the ship's crew was still on board over a month later.
Looks like visa paperwork is one reason, and another to maintain regular duties on the ship. I also heard on a TV news report that seafarers typically are at sea for 6 to 8 months.
Why is the Dali ship crew still stuck on board in the Baltimore Harbor? (https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-is-the-dali-ship-crew-still-stuck-on-board-in-the-baltimore-harbor-214450309.html)
QuoteWhy is the crew still on the boat?
On April 1, BBC reported that authorities said there were no plans to disembark the Dali's crew and it is unlikely any plan will be put in place unless the vessel is moved or taken out of the water. The Coast Guard said on March 29 that moving the ship is a second priority to reopening the Baltimore port and the shipping channel.
The BBC also reported that "even in normal circumstances, disembarking crews of foreign nationals from ships in U.S. ports requires significant paperwork." Twenty of the crew are citizens of India and one is from Sri Lanka.
The crew members would need visas and valid shore passes to allow them off the ship and require escorts to take them from the ship to the terminal gate, according to the BBC. It is not clear whether the crew has this required paperwork.
A representative from the Maryland Port Authority's Key Bridge response team told Futurism that the crew is also still "engaged in maintaining the current status of the ship" as the NTSB and Coast Guard continue their investigation.
"The crew is busy with their normal duties on the ship as well as assisting the NTSB and Coast Guard investigators on board," Dali management spokesman, William Marks, told the Washington Post.
Noticed the last couple days there's been a sudden outcry from people not at all familiar with international shipping in reference to the crew. "Oh my god, they made them sit there RIGHT NEXT TO THE EXPLOSION! They've been sitting there for TWO MONTHS!! They had their phones taken away (while ignoring that they were given replacements), they don't have internet access!!" Not to say that perhaps we should have some more compassion for this crew, as it seems apparent that they absolutely didn't do any of this on purpose. But man, when people decide to inject themselves into stuff they have no clue about, it just turns stupid.
Quote from: Sonic99 on May 17, 2024, 02:59:18 AMNoticed the last couple days there's been a sudden outcry from people not at all familiar with international shipping in reference to the crew. "Oh my god, they made them sit there RIGHT NEXT TO THE EXPLOSION! They've been sitting there for TWO MONTHS!! They had their phones taken away (while ignoring that they were given replacements), they don't have internet access!!" Not to say that perhaps we should have some more compassion for this crew, as it seems apparent that they absolutely didn't do any of this on purpose. But man, when people decide to inject themselves into stuff they have no clue about, it just turns stupid.
So, pretty much every comment section of every news story.
Sports stories are even better. I shake my head every time when there's no runners on the bases and someone says the pitcher committed a balk (the penalty for a balk is the runners move up a base. Since there's no runners, no balk was committed). And how few people understand when the Infield Fly rule should be called.
Quote from: Sonic99 on May 17, 2024, 02:59:18 AMNoticed the last couple days there's been a sudden outcry from people not at all familiar with international shipping in reference to the crew. "Oh my god, they made them sit there RIGHT NEXT TO THE EXPLOSION! They've been sitting there for TWO MONTHS!! They had their phones taken away (while ignoring that they were given replacements), they don't have internet access!!" Not to say that perhaps we should have some more compassion for this crew, as it seems apparent that they absolutely didn't do any of this on purpose. But man, when people decide to inject themselves into stuff they have no clue about, it just turns stupid.
I'm thinking more about the poor harbor captain who was probably expecting to go home at the end of his shift. But still, the crew is stuck their, presumably having their time out lengthened by however long they're stuck. I wouldn't view simply getting a new phone as having your own phone taken away not matter. I have stuff like my media library and custom ringtone on my phone that isn't as simple as "just sign in and sync from the backup". Plus whoever has my phone would have access to my email, social media, browser history, etc. It's a huge invasion of privacy with potential for varying degrees of worse (someone just curious could sign into my account here and screw up which posts are "new", causing me to miss some; a malicious actor could impersonate me in email or on Facebook; this is the reason I don't save passwords for banks or anything really important).
Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2024, 01:01:04 PMQuote from: Sonic99 on May 17, 2024, 02:59:18 AMNoticed the last couple days there's been a sudden outcry from people not at all familiar with international shipping in reference to the crew. "Oh my god, they made them sit there RIGHT NEXT TO THE EXPLOSION! They've been sitting there for TWO MONTHS!! They had their phones taken away (while ignoring that they were given replacements), they don't have internet access!!" Not to say that perhaps we should have some more compassion for this crew, as it seems apparent that they absolutely didn't do any of this on purpose. But man, when people decide to inject themselves into stuff they have no clue about, it just turns stupid.
I'm thinking more about the poor harbor captain who was probably expecting to go home at the end of his shift. But still, the crew is stuck their, presumably having their time out lengthened by however long they're stuck. I wouldn't view simply getting a new phone as having your own phone taken away not matter. I have stuff like my media library and custom ringtone on my phone that isn't as simple as "just sign in and sync from the backup". Plus whoever has my phone would have access to my email, social media, browser history, etc. It's a huge invasion of privacy with potential for varying degrees of worse (someone just curious could sign into my account here and screw up which posts are "new", causing me to miss some; a malicious actor could impersonate me in email or on Facebook; this is the reason I don't save passwords for banks or anything really important).
That privacy invasion is probably what they're going for, to try to see if there was any hint of unwelcoming activity.
Quote from: Sonic99 on May 17, 2024, 02:59:18 AMNoticed the last couple days there's been a sudden outcry from people not at all familiar with international shipping in reference to the crew. "Oh my god, they made them sit there RIGHT NEXT TO THE EXPLOSION! They've been sitting there for TWO MONTHS!! They had their phones taken away (while ignoring that they were given replacements), they don't have internet access!!" Not to say that perhaps we should have some more compassion for this crew, as it seems apparent that they absolutely didn't do any of this on purpose. But man, when people decide to inject themselves into stuff they have no clue about, it just turns stupid.
I offer a personal apology.
The Dali is set to be refloated early tomorrow morning during high tide and towed back to the port:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/18/us/dali-ship-baltimore-bridge-refloats
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on May 16, 2024, 12:33:40 AMQuote from: Mapmikey on May 15, 2024, 08:50:05 PMbecause it isn't just the Key Bridge that was tolled. The Bear Creek Bridge and Curtis Creek Bridges are also technically toll bridges. The toll road is 10.9 miles of bridges and approaches.
the WB toll road starts just west of MD 151 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/uf5CzX8gHtX4cRFs6), though you can go to MD 157 toll free.
the other end is just west of MD 10 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XQGjrvJBY8o735oz9) with multiple free exits before the toll EB.
Trucks who did the turnaround got a discounted rate vs. driving over the Key Bridge.
the discount was only for local ez-pass.
Now if they keep tolling it all users should get the discount.
My thoughts are that despite the legalities of whether MdTA is allowed to toll the currently open segment, they probably shouldn't, because it does seem like bad form for the MdTA to be counting pennies while there is an emergency situation going on. Travel times for Dundalk are already so much worse without the bridge that any segment of highway that is open is helpful, especially considering that for many of the trucks serving the Dundalk Marine Terminal, their only travel option is to take I-695 all the way around Baltimore to head south or west.
Going forward, IMO, it seems like a bad policy to charge any toll for this exit (or for Childs on I-895) or any other tolls that other agencies may have before a crossing should be corrected. For the specific examples in MD, these are legacies of the placement of the original toll booths, obviously they can only fit in specific locations, but with open road tolling infrastructure the gantries should only be put in places that are beyond the point of no return as far as the water crossings are concerned.
MdTA sez, "You use our facility, you pay for it."
Since when has the government cared about bad form?
The argument here is most people think tolls are only paying for a specific piece of infrastructure, whereas their jurisdiction is much larger. The tolls are paying for more than just that bridge and road. They're put into the pot for everything they own. And there's probably bonds that still need to be paid, money that comes from tollpayers. While the actual toll loss is probably fairly minimal as most travelers will still use a tolled facility, tollpayers that still would be paying a toll on 695 still are expected to do so.
Quote from: Henry on May 16, 2024, 09:37:37 PMAt least that problem doesn't exist on the Chicago Skyway. It's set up like I-895, but there are no exits until you've crossed the bridge and paid the toll. ISTHA really did their homework on that one.
Just for the record, the Skyway is not owned by the ISHTA. It was built and then operated by the city for many years, and it is now leased out to an international consortium.
Also the part of the Garden State Parkway between the Passack Valley Toll Plaza and the NYS Thruway in Bergen County, NJ is set up that way.
No exits SB until you pay the toll. It was like that NB as well with no NB entrances but now they removed the NB toll, but still only NB exits into New York.
That's also to deter local use like with I-895 in Baltimore. It was in addition to the toll to keep locals from using as well.
Quote from: Sonic99 on May 17, 2024, 02:59:18 AMBut man, when people decide to inject themselves into stuff they have no clue about, it just turns stupid.
So, you say you're new to social media?
(https://i.imgur.com/LfqWXtz.jpeg)
Checked out the newly-reopened Broening Highway turnaround over the long weekend, here are some pics starting at the onramp from Broening Highway and ending at the start of the Bear Creek bridge:
(https://i.imgur.com/UQRLB5O.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Dmptey5.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qLQ8XXm.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/wBJgggF.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/AMWlwh1.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/c6k1Qxt.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Tuk16Mv.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/QS6EEZM.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bEfIfHO.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/quUFkeD.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yS7pVko.jpeg)
The Request for Proposals was released by MDTA today:
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/mdta-invites-proposals-rebuilding-francis-scott-key-bridge
QuoteKey Bridge Rebuild Milestone Dates:
Proposals Due: Monday, June 24, 2024
Project Team Selection: Mid-to-late Summer 2024
Project Completion: Fall 2028
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 27, 2024, 02:19:48 PMQuote from: Henry on May 16, 2024, 09:37:37 PMAt least that problem doesn't exist on the Chicago Skyway. It's set up like I-895, but there are no exits until you've crossed the bridge and paid the toll. ISTHA really did their homework on that one.
Just for the record, the Skyway is not owned by the ISHTA. It was built and then operated by the city for many years, and it is now leased out to an international consortium.
Oops! I keep forgetting that it was the City of Chicago that maintained it.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on May 28, 2024, 07:23:20 PMChecked out the newly-reopened Broening Highway turnaround over the long weekend, here are some pics starting at the onramp from Broening Highway and ending at the start of the Bear Creek bridge:
Are there any intricacies involved in this, or do you literally just turn around?
Quote from: epzik8 on June 01, 2024, 05:00:33 PMQuote from: jmacswimmer on May 28, 2024, 07:23:20 PMChecked out the newly-reopened Broening Highway turnaround over the long weekend, here are some pics starting at the onramp from Broening Highway and ending at the start of the Bear Creek bridge:
Are there any intricacies involved in this, or do you literally just turn around?
It would be easiest to follow the route if Google Maps didn't have the whole thing marked as "closed". The asphalt already existed as a way to let MDTA vehicles drive between their various buildings in the area.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on May 31, 2024, 02:32:50 PMThe Request for Proposals was released by MDTA today:
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/mdta-invites-proposals-rebuilding-francis-scott-key-bridge
QuoteKey Bridge Rebuild Milestone Dates:
Proposals Due: Monday, June 24, 2024
Project Team Selection: Mid-to-late Summer 2024
Project Completion: Fall 2028
Well, it will likely be a cable stayed.. but lets build a nice "showpiece" bridge here, in my mind. It would be a cabled stayed bridge, with the cables illuminated in such a way that it looks Red White and Blue..
If this report is to be believed (https://www.wbaltv.com/article/key-bridge-collapse-remaining-portion-to-be-demolished/61019724), our suspicions have been confirmed that the new bridge will be built on the exact same alignment as the old one, which would mean demolishing the remainder of the old bridge. And that would make the most sense, what with the toll plaza being replaced by a gantry only five years ago, and (as I said it before) there's no reason to move said gantry now.
Quote from: Moose on June 04, 2024, 05:51:36 PMQuote from: jmacswimmer on May 31, 2024, 02:32:50 PMThe Request for Proposals was released by MDTA today:
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/mdta-invites-proposals-rebuilding-francis-scott-key-bridge
QuoteKey Bridge Rebuild Milestone Dates:
Proposals Due: Monday, June 24, 2024
Project Team Selection: Mid-to-late Summer 2024
Project Completion: Fall 2028
Well, it will likely be a cable stayed.. but lets build a nice "showpiece" bridge here, in my mind. It would be a cabled stayed bridge, with the cables illuminated in such a way that it looks Red White and Blue..
Also, we could use orange for baseball season and purple for football season, and maybe red and green for the Christmas holiday season. FWIW, the new showpiece bridge should complement the skyline as well as the old one did, if not better than that.
Quote from: Henry on June 11, 2024, 03:19:07 PMIf this report is to be believed (https://www.wbaltv.com/article/key-bridge-collapse-remaining-portion-to-be-demolished/61019724), our suspicions have been confirmed that the new bridge will be built on the exact same alignment as the old one, which would mean demolishing the remainder of the old bridge. And that would make the most sense, what with the toll plaza being replaced by a gantry only five years ago, and (as I said it before) there's no reason to move said gantry now.
Quote from: Moose on June 04, 2024, 05:51:36 PMQuote from: jmacswimmer on May 31, 2024, 02:32:50 PMThe Request for Proposals was released by MDTA today:
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/mdta-invites-proposals-rebuilding-francis-scott-key-bridge
QuoteKey Bridge Rebuild Milestone Dates:
Proposals Due: Monday, June 24, 2024
Project Team Selection: Mid-to-late Summer 2024
Project Completion: Fall 2028
Well, it will likely be a cable stayed.. but lets build a nice "showpiece" bridge here, in my mind. It would be a cabled stayed bridge, with the cables illuminated in such a way that it looks Red White and Blue..
Also, we could use orange for baseball season and purple for football season, and maybe red and green for the Christmas holiday season. FWIW, the new showpiece bridge should complement the skyline as well as the old one did, if not better than that.
but the old one is 2 lanes with no shoulders so that may force them to rebuild the tolls also the turn around tolling can be changed? set up to give the discount to all?
Earlier today the Dali departed Baltimore for Norfolk and cleared the Bay Bridge around 11:15, with traffic held as it passed underneath:
https://x.com/TheMDTA/status/1805262722273042745
Meanwhile the Broening Highway turnaround will now remain untolled through late August, with MDTA to "reassess the status" again at that point. Looks like google maps finally updated at some point to show I-695 as reopened leading up to the turnaround.
https://x.com/TheMDTA/status/1805295673593446413
QuoteProposals for the rebuild of the Francis Scott Key Bridge are due Monday. But the Baltimore Transit Equity Coalition (BTEC) and its allies "urgently request the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) to accept designs that include light rail transit for the rebuilding," in an official statement released Thursday.
In their statement, advocates argue that a light rail option would increase work opportunities and improve air quality while reducing commute times. "The mantra in the industry is, development follows rail," said Samuel Jordan, president of BTEC. "So why shouldn't we extend that opportunity for expanded development that's going to occur, and is occurring in East Baltimore County, across the bridge?" he asked.
Jordan believes adding light rail will help people in underserved neighborhoods in South Baltimore without cars get to work. They could ride to places like Tradepoint Atlantic in Sparrows Point where companies like Amazon, UPS and FedEx are located.
https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-06-21/baltimore-transit-coalition-urges-delay-in-key-bridge-rebuild-proposals (https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-06-21/baltimore-transit-coalition-urges-delay-in-key-bridge-rebuild-proposals)
Quote from: bluecountry on June 24, 2024, 06:24:46 PMQuoteProposals for the rebuild of the Francis Scott Key Bridge are due Monday. But the Baltimore Transit Equity Coalition (BTEC) and its allies "urgently request the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) to accept designs that include light rail transit for the rebuilding," in an official statement released Thursday.
In their statement, advocates argue that a light rail option would increase work opportunities and improve air quality while reducing commute times. "The mantra in the industry is, development follows rail," said Samuel Jordan, president of BTEC. "So why shouldn't we extend that opportunity for expanded development that's going to occur, and is occurring in East Baltimore County, across the bridge?" he asked.
Jordan believes adding light rail will help people in underserved neighborhoods in South Baltimore without cars get to work. They could ride to places like Tradepoint Atlantic in Sparrows Point where companies like Amazon, UPS and FedEx are located.
https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-06-21/baltimore-transit-coalition-urges-delay-in-key-bridge-rebuild-proposals (https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-06-21/baltimore-transit-coalition-urges-delay-in-key-bridge-rebuild-proposals)
I know we're primarily a road-based community and "omg replace all the roads with rail" people can get silly, but I honestly don't think it's a terrible idea to have some rail space on a new bridge. This new one will likely be used for 50-75 years, so not a bad idea to build in future expandability for something like a rail line in that area.
Quote from: Sonic99 on June 25, 2024, 09:38:57 PMQuote from: bluecountry on June 24, 2024, 06:24:46 PMQuoteProposals for the rebuild of the Francis Scott Key Bridge are due Monday. But the Baltimore Transit Equity Coalition (BTEC) and its allies "urgently request the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) to accept designs that include light rail transit for the rebuilding," in an official statement released Thursday.
In their statement, advocates argue that a light rail option would increase work opportunities and improve air quality while reducing commute times. "The mantra in the industry is, development follows rail," said Samuel Jordan, president of BTEC. "So why shouldn't we extend that opportunity for expanded development that's going to occur, and is occurring in East Baltimore County, across the bridge?" he asked.
Jordan believes adding light rail will help people in underserved neighborhoods in South Baltimore without cars get to work. They could ride to places like Tradepoint Atlantic in Sparrows Point where companies like Amazon, UPS and FedEx are located.
https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-06-21/baltimore-transit-coalition-urges-delay-in-key-bridge-rebuild-proposals (https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-06-21/baltimore-transit-coalition-urges-delay-in-key-bridge-rebuild-proposals)
I know we're primarily a road-based community and "omg replace all the roads with rail" people can get silly, but I honestly don't think it's a terrible idea to have some rail space on a new bridge. This new one will likely be used for 50-75 years, so not a bad idea to build in future expandability for something like a rail line in that area.
Agreed, like the Tappan Zee Bridge.
Quote from: bluecountry on June 27, 2024, 05:34:41 PMQuote from: Sonic99 on June 25, 2024, 09:38:57 PMQuote from: bluecountry on June 24, 2024, 06:24:46 PMQuoteProposals for the rebuild of the Francis Scott Key Bridge are due Monday. But the Baltimore Transit Equity Coalition (BTEC) and its allies "urgently request the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) to accept designs that include light rail transit for the rebuilding," in an official statement released Thursday.
In their statement, advocates argue that a light rail option would increase work opportunities and improve air quality while reducing commute times. "The mantra in the industry is, development follows rail," said Samuel Jordan, president of BTEC. "So why shouldn't we extend that opportunity for expanded development that's going to occur, and is occurring in East Baltimore County, across the bridge?" he asked.
Jordan believes adding light rail will help people in underserved neighborhoods in South Baltimore without cars get to work. They could ride to places like Tradepoint Atlantic in Sparrows Point where companies like Amazon, UPS and FedEx are located.
https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-06-21/baltimore-transit-coalition-urges-delay-in-key-bridge-rebuild-proposals (https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-06-21/baltimore-transit-coalition-urges-delay-in-key-bridge-rebuild-proposals)
I know we're primarily a road-based community and "omg replace all the roads with rail" people can get silly, but I honestly don't think it's a terrible idea to have some rail space on a new bridge. This new one will likely be used for 50-75 years, so not a bad idea to build in future expandability for something like a rail line in that area.
Agreed, like the Tappan Zee Bridge.
Is there need or demand? I can't think of a good transit destination along this corridor as this is a bypass of Downtown Baltimore not a connector to Downtown Baltimore. Is there a demand for a connection of some of the freight railways?
At least the Tappan Zee can be used as a way to get to Manhattan. Rockland County commuters can cross the bridge and then take a train down the Hudson Line to Grand Central. A rail spur of the Hudson line along the Tappan Zee can serve NYC commuters who live in this area, and there are a significant number of NYC commuters in Rockland county and a spur can encourage them to use transit instead of driving. But I don't see a similar market in Balto.
Passive provision for heavy freight workings across the Outer Harbor would theoretically allow CSX to extend their existing network of sidings, running lines and yards in Curtis Bay to the replacement bridge and then across to Sparrows Point. On the opposite side, the Canton Railroad could theoretically do the same, and provide an alternate means for either company to dispatch traffic across the city to either reach customers on the other side, or to bypass the Baltimore Belt Line and the Howard Street Tunnel.
Light rail provision would be a waste of effort in my opinion. While Sparrows Point itself could serve as a terminus for a light rail line, in my opinion all of the routes for such a line would be to the north and west, not to the south and southeast. Unless the power plants southeast of the bridge site are redeveloped in the exact same way that Sparrows Point was redeveloped and new traffic flows across the replacement bridge open up, I can't see any reason to provide light rail on the bridge. Heavy freight, as described above, would theoretically be far more useful.
Quote from: Sonic99 on June 25, 2024, 09:38:57 PMI know we're primarily a road-based community and "omg replace all the roads with rail" people can get silly, but I honestly don't think it's a terrible idea to have some rail space on a new bridge. This new one will likely be used for 50-75 years, so not a bad idea to build in future expandability for something like a rail line in that area.
Mainline RR grades are rarely above 1%. Anything over 2% is pretty extreme. Clearance under the old bridge was 185', and it's likely the new one will be a bit higher. Seems an approach of 3-4 miles on each side would be necessary, which would run from about MD-10 to about the existing railroad near MD-151.
If faulty, someone please correct my math or assumptions.
Quote from: davewiecking on June 30, 2024, 07:25:11 PMMainline RR grades are rarely above 1%. Anything over 2% is pretty extreme. Clearance under the old bridge was 185', and it's likely the new one will be a bit higher. Seems an approach of 3-4 miles on each side would be necessary, which would run from about MD-10 to about the existing railroad near MD-151.
If faulty, someone please correct my math or assumptions.
I agree that this is prohibitive for HEAVY Rail, but Light rail could be a little more aggressive in its grade.
It has been confirmed that the rest of the bridge will be demolished to make way for its replacement:
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/key-bridges-remaining-structures-to-be-demolished-with-plans-discussed-for-new-bridge/
Quote from: davewiecking on June 30, 2024, 07:25:11 PMQuote from: Sonic99 on June 25, 2024, 09:38:57 PMI know we're primarily a road-based community and "omg replace all the roads with rail" people can get silly, but I honestly don't think it's a terrible idea to have some rail space on a new bridge. This new one will likely be used for 50-75 years, so not a bad idea to build in future expandability for something like a rail line in that area.
Mainline RR grades are rarely above 1%. Anything over 2% is pretty extreme. Clearance under the old bridge was 185', and it's likely the new one will be a bit higher. Seems an approach of 3-4 miles on each side would be necessary, which would run from about MD-10 to about the existing railroad near MD-151.
If faulty, someone please correct my math or assumptions.
The clearance should be about the same. In order to get to this bridge, ships would need to go under the Chesapeake Bay Bridges (186 feet) or thru the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal (a few bridges offer 135 feet of clearance). Since it's unlikely Delaware has any plans to knock down both Chesapeake Bay Bridges or build a tunnel here, there's no reason to offer more than 186 feet of clearance.
The scary thing is the local newspaper has personally observed hazmat trucks going through the tunnels rather than detouring around the Beltway. Supposedly enforcement has not increased with the Key Bridge being out (and a staff shortage is likely the cause). Hoping we don't have another disaster on our hands.
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 12, 2024, 08:10:31 AMThe scary thing is the local newspaper has personally observed hazmat trucks going through the tunnels rather than detouring around the Beltway. Supposedly enforcement has not increased with the Key Bridge being out (and a staff shortage is likely the cause). Hoping we don't have another disaster on our hands.
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/transportation/francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-hazmat-trucks-tunnels-V3MAXLPOWFDKDH6PR3R4IUTQZY/
Quote from: ixnay on July 12, 2024, 12:48:16 PMQuote from: MASTERNC on July 12, 2024, 08:10:31 AMThe scary thing is the local newspaper has personally observed hazmat trucks going through the tunnels rather than detouring around the Beltway. Supposedly enforcement has not increased with the Key Bridge being out (and a staff shortage is likely the cause). Hoping we don't have another disaster on our hands.
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/transportation/francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-hazmat-trucks-tunnels-V3MAXLPOWFDKDH6PR3R4IUTQZY/
Yikes!!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2024, 12:15:30 AMThe clearance should be about the same. In order to get to this bridge, ships would need to go under the Chesapeake Bay Bridges (186 feet) or thru the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal (a few bridges offer 135 feet of clearance). Since it's unlikely Delaware has any plans to knock down both Chesapeake Bay Bridges or build a tunnel here, there's no reason to offer more than 186 feet of clearance.
The question to ask here is: how high will the US50 crossing be when the Key Bridge replacement approaches EOL?
If they build the Key Bridge replacement (I assume they'll find some politician to name it after) higher, then when it comes time to replace the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, they will have the opportunity to build it higher, thereby making the Port of Baltimore accessible to more ships.
I'll admit that I believe the Chesapeake Bay Bridges have a projected lifespan out beyond the middle of the century, but I remember MDOT projecting that traffic will regularly hit LOS E or F long before then.
Quote from: plain on July 12, 2024, 02:21:14 PMQuote from: ixnay on July 12, 2024, 12:48:16 PMQuote from: MASTERNC on July 12, 2024, 08:10:31 AMThe scary thing is the local newspaper has personally observed hazmat trucks going through the tunnels rather than detouring around the Beltway. Supposedly enforcement has not increased with the Key Bridge being out (and a staff shortage is likely the cause). Hoping we don't have another disaster on our hands.
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/transportation/francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-hazmat-trucks-tunnels-V3MAXLPOWFDKDH6PR3R4IUTQZY/
Yikes!!
Some of them are empty. Some are carrying non-prohibited loads, Some are ready to go boom!
Quote from: bwana39 on July 13, 2024, 01:07:41 PMQuote from: plain on July 12, 2024, 02:21:14 PMQuote from: ixnay on July 12, 2024, 12:48:16 PMQuote from: MASTERNC on July 12, 2024, 08:10:31 AMThe scary thing is the local newspaper has personally observed hazmat trucks going through the tunnels rather than detouring around the Beltway. Supposedly enforcement has not increased with the Key Bridge being out (and a staff shortage is likely the cause). Hoping we don't have another disaster on our hands.
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/transportation/francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-hazmat-trucks-tunnels-V3MAXLPOWFDKDH6PR3R4IUTQZY/
Yikes!!
Some of them are empty. Some are carrying non-prohibited loads, Some are ready to go boom!
Huh. Never thought about empty trucks that usually transport HAZMATS. Shouldn't the placards come off in those cases? I'd imagine they'd stay on out of laziness/lack of time, though.
Quote from: Rothman on July 13, 2024, 01:19:42 PMHuh. Never thought about empty trucks that usually transport HAZMATS. Shouldn't the placards come off in those cases? I'd imagine they'd stay on out of laziness/lack of time, though.
I checked, and it seems 49 CFR § 172.504 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/172.504) allows a hazmat carrier not to display placards if it is carrying no more than 1000 lb of the hazmat, or only the residue thereof in empty non-bulk packages. This implies there is no actual requirement to remove any placards already displayed when either condition applies, so I suspect the drivers of the empty vehicles are counting on not having their collars felt.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2024, 12:15:30 AM.... Since it's unlikely Delaware has any plans to knock down both Chesapeake Bay Bridges or build a tunnel here, there's no reason to offer more than 186 feet of clearance.
The Bay Bridge twin span is in Maryland, not Delaware, so I sincerely hope Delaware doesn't plan to knock it down.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2024, 05:29:45 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2024, 12:15:30 AM.... Since it's unlikely Delaware has any plans to knock down both Chesapeake Bay Bridges or build a tunnel here, there's no reason to offer more than 186 feet of clearance.
The Bay Bridge twin span is in Maryland, not Delaware, so I sincerely hope Delaware doesn't plan to knock it down.
Ugh. I'm finding I'm making more and more of those typos lately. I gotta reread what I write - twice - before I send it.
In another thread, it was mentioned that there are a significant number of people who oppose rebuilding the Key Bridge. Is this at all true? Are these people with some sort of power (legislature, government, etc.) or just some cranks who oppose spending.
I know that it will probably take a few years to rebuild, but it seems like there is a full commitment to rebuild, even if there is some question as to whether the Feds will cover the tab.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 13, 2024, 05:45:52 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2024, 05:29:45 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2024, 12:15:30 AM.... Since it's unlikely Delaware has any plans to knock down both Chesapeake Bay Bridges or build a tunnel here, there's no reason to offer more than 186 feet of clearance.
The Bay Bridge twin span is in Maryland, not Delaware, so I sincerely hope Delaware doesn't plan to knock it down.
Ugh. I'm finding I'm making more and more of those typos lately. I gotta reread what I write - twice - before I send it.
Besides, the twin span you're probably thinking about is the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2024, 12:15:30 AMQuote from: davewiecking on June 30, 2024, 07:25:11 PMQuote from: Sonic99 on June 25, 2024, 09:38:57 PMI know we're primarily a road-based community and "omg replace all the roads with rail" people can get silly, but I honestly don't think it's a terrible idea to have some rail space on a new bridge. This new one will likely be used for 50-75 years, so not a bad idea to build in future expandability for something like a rail line in that area.
Mainline RR grades are rarely above 1%. Anything over 2% is pretty extreme. Clearance under the old bridge was 185', and it's likely the new one will be a bit higher. Seems an approach of 3-4 miles on each side would be necessary, which would run from about MD-10 to about the existing railroad near MD-151.
If faulty, someone please correct my math or assumptions.
The clearance should be about the same. In order to get to this bridge, ships would need to go under the Chesapeake Bay Bridges (186 feet) or thru the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal (a few bridges offer 135 feet of clearance). Since it's unlikely Delaware has any plans to knock down both Chesapeake Bay Bridges or build a tunnel here, there's no reason to offer more than 186 feet of clearance.
They would be silly to constrain themselves for the future by only building to the existing limitation of other bridges which are significantly older. They have the opportunity to build the next bridge to last 75-100 years. I would absolutely think they'll go with a higher clearance to anticipate a Bay Bridge replacement in the next 20-30 years. And perhaps, if they indeed build this one taller, it could encourage MDOT to look into a replacement with higher limits sooner than later. "Hey, the Port is ready to handle the next upgrade in size of ships and this is the only thing holding that back" would be an argument that could be had if they rebuild Key to be 200-220+ ft clearance.
Quote from: Sonic99 on July 15, 2024, 05:54:27 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2024, 12:15:30 AMQuote from: davewiecking on June 30, 2024, 07:25:11 PMQuote from: Sonic99 on June 25, 2024, 09:38:57 PMI know we're primarily a road-based community and "omg replace all the roads with rail" people can get silly, but I honestly don't think it's a terrible idea to have some rail space on a new bridge. This new one will likely be used for 50-75 years, so not a bad idea to build in future expandability for something like a rail line in that area.
Mainline RR grades are rarely above 1%. Anything over 2% is pretty extreme. Clearance under the old bridge was 185', and it's likely the new one will be a bit higher. Seems an approach of 3-4 miles on each side would be necessary, which would run from about MD-10 to about the existing railroad near MD-151.
If faulty, someone please correct my math or assumptions.
The clearance should be about the same. In order to get to this bridge, ships would need to go under the Chesapeake Bay Bridges (186 feet) or thru the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal (a few bridges offer 135 feet of clearance). Since it's unlikely Delaware has any plans to knock down both Chesapeake Bay Bridges or build a tunnel here, there's no reason to offer more than 186 feet of clearance.
They would be silly to constrain themselves for the future by only building to the existing limitation of other bridges which are significantly older. They have the opportunity to build the next bridge to last 75-100 years. I would absolutely think they'll go with a higher clearance to anticipate a Bay Bridge replacement in the next 20-30 years. And perhaps, if they indeed build this one taller, it could encourage MDOT to look into a replacement with higher limits sooner than later. "Hey, the Port is ready to handle the next upgrade in size of ships and this is the only thing holding that back" would be an argument that could be had if they rebuild Key to be 200-220+ ft clearance.
They've obtained bay bridge addition or replacement proposals already to relieve congestion. Some proposals call for a bridge/tunnel, but not all. I haven't seen anything regarding a greater clearance height if theres no tunnel involved.
Since this is an emergency replacement, are they only bidding or allowing for an 'in-kind' structure?
Quote from: PColumbus73 on July 15, 2024, 08:55:27 PMSince this is an emergency replacement, are they only bidding or allowing for an 'in-kind' structure?
No. The new structure will be a different bridge design than the old structure, and at least one media report mentioned the existing piers on either side will be demolished.
All you wanted to know about the Key Bridge rebuild.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/07/18/key-bridge-rebuild-q-and-a/
Quote from: davewiecking on July 19, 2024, 11:54:00 PMAll you wanted to know about the Key Bridge rebuild.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/07/18/key-bridge-rebuild-q-and-a/
Didn't care for this answer: "Also factoring into the calculus is the lifetime of the Bay Bridge. It only has about 15 or 20 more years of life,"
It certainly had more than 15/20 years of life. Not sure what info they used for this. And the question was related to building dolphin barriers a few decades ago, not the day after it was hit. Even if its lifespan was coming to an end, there are numerous ways to repair the bridge and lengthen that timeline. Large bridges like this frequently are reconstructed for this purpose.
Also, if its lifespan were to end in 15 or 20 years, they would already need to be talking replacement. There are years of planning, engineering, design, right of way and other pre-construction activity that would need to be done first. and the actual construction would be about 3 - 4 years, at minimum, at a normal pace.
In a perfect world, there would be no toll increases resulting from this in the Baltimore tunnels.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2024, 10:14:12 AMQuote from: davewiecking on July 19, 2024, 11:54:00 PMAll you wanted to know about the Key Bridge rebuild.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/07/18/key-bridge-rebuild-q-and-a/
Didn't care for this answer: "Also factoring into the calculus is the lifetime of the Bay Bridge. It only has about 15 or 20 more years of life,"
It certainly had more than 15/20 years of life. Not sure what info they used for this. And the question was related to building dolphin barriers a few decades ago, not the day after it was hit. Even if its lifespan was coming to an end, there are numerous ways to repair the bridge and lengthen that timeline. Large bridges like this frequently are reconstructed for this purpose.
Also, if its lifespan were to end in 15 or 20 years, they would already need to be talking replacement. There are years of planning, engineering, design, right of way and other pre-construction activity that would need to be done first. and the actual construction would be about 3 - 4 years, at minimum, at a normal pace.
3-4 years from scoping to construction on a project the size of the the Key Bridge is pretty optimistic. :D
Then again, the Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge was done pretty darned quickly, all things considered...
Quote from: Rothman on July 20, 2024, 08:38:09 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2024, 10:14:12 AMQuote from: davewiecking on July 19, 2024, 11:54:00 PMAll you wanted to know about the Key Bridge rebuild.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/07/18/key-bridge-rebuild-q-and-a/
Didn't care for this answer: "Also factoring into the calculus is the lifetime of the Bay Bridge. It only has about 15 or 20 more years of life,"
It certainly had more than 15/20 years of life. Not sure what info they used for this. And the question was related to building dolphin barriers a few decades ago, not the day after it was hit. Even if its lifespan was coming to an end, there are numerous ways to repair the bridge and lengthen that timeline. Large bridges like this frequently are reconstructed for this purpose.
Also, if its lifespan were to end in 15 or 20 years, they would already need to be talking replacement. There are years of planning, engineering, design, right of way and other pre-construction activity that would need to be done first. and the actual construction would be about 3 - 4 years, at minimum, at a normal pace.
3-4 years from scoping to construction on a project the size of the the Key Bridge is pretty optimistic. :D
Then again, the Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge was done pretty darned quickly, all things considered...
No, no. I said after all the prelim stuff is done, *then* it's 3 - 4 years for construction!
Aren't the Tappan Zee and Goethals essentially the same design? Guess that copy-pasting bridge designs doesn't save that much time.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on July 23, 2024, 08:35:37 AMAren't the Tappan Zee and Goethals essentially the same design? Guess that copy-pasting bridge designs doesn't save that much time.
While I'm not familiar with New York, I'm inclined to say that they are both the same design, as they're twin spans that look exactly alike. But the big difference is that the new Key Bridge will be a single span, as it was the lightest traveled of the three Baltimore harbor crossings, and until some sort of industry explosion happens in its surrounding areas, it will be once again that way.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on July 23, 2024, 08:35:37 AMAren't the Tappan Zee and Goethals essentially the same design? Guess that copy-pasting bridge designs doesn't save that much time.
Design work is NEVER cut and paste any more. The level of microengineering details is burdensome and expensive. While you do use the same design standards, the sheets are each done seemingly from scratch.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 12, 2024, 10:59:02 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on July 23, 2024, 08:35:37 AMAren't the Tappan Zee and Goethals essentially the same design? Guess that copy-pasting bridge designs doesn't save that much time.
Design work is NEVER cut and paste any more. The level of microengineering details is burdensome and expensive. While you do use the same design standards, the sheets are each done seemingly from scratch.
I've seen people think traffic lights are a standard kit they take out of a box.
While many can be built alike, they all need to be constructed specifically for each location based on minor details present at similar intersections, especially sidewalk ramps, lane and shoulder widths and underground utilities.
Kiewit awarded contract for design build: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/mdta-board-approves-key-bridge-rebuild-contract/
Quote from: Big John on August 29, 2024, 08:33:43 PMKiewit awarded contract for design build: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/mdta-board-approves-key-bridge-rebuild-contract/
Progress...
Quote from: Big John on August 29, 2024, 08:33:43 PMKiewit awarded contract for design build: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/mdta-board-approves-key-bridge-rebuild-contract/
QuoteThe project is set to begin in 2025, and the replacement bridge is expected to be complete by Fall 2028. Kiewit estimates rebuilding the bridge will cost about $1.2 billion, which is less than the initial projection of $1.7 billion, but a more accurate cost projection will be made halfway through phase one.
Well I think I can see how they won the bid.
4 years later...oops...it's over $2 Billion. Blame X, Y, and Z.
So we finally know who will build the new Key Bridge, which means that demolition of the old bridge's remains should begin any minute now.
Also buried in the announcement is a confirmation that the Broening Highway turnaround will now remain toll-free until the rebuild is completed (it was being re-evaluated month-by-month up until this point).
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/mdta-board-approves-progressive-design-build-contract-francis
I'm looking forward to what the new bridge will look like.
I hope the new bridge is six lanes (three in each direction) with breakdown shoulders on both sides.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2024, 09:38:14 PMI hope the new bridge is six lanes (three in each direction) with breakdown shoulders on both sides.
I get we want to reach for the stars, but that design - 10 lanes wide total, would be a bridge 2.5 times wider than the previous bridge of 4 lanes.
And there's a considerable distance on both sides of the Key Bridge location which remain 4 lanes total, including the Curtis Creek Drawbridges to the south and several bridges to the north.
There doesn't seem to be any reason why the bridge needs to be 3 lanes wide per direction when the roadway will remain 2 lanes wide per direction on either side of the bridge.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 30, 2024, 10:45:15 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2024, 09:38:14 PMI hope the new bridge is six lanes (three in each direction) with breakdown shoulders on both sides.
I get we want to reach for the stars, but that design - 10 lanes wide total, would be a bridge 2.5 times wider than the previous bridge of 4 lanes.
And there's a considerable distance on both sides of the Key Bridge location which remain 4 lanes total, including the Curtis Creek Drawbridges to the south and several bridges to the north.
There doesn't seem to be any reason why the bridge needs to be 3 lanes wide per direction when the roadway will remain 2 lanes wide per direction on either side of the bridge.
My contention would be that it should be built for way further down the road than any of us can envision. The new bridge should hopefully be 60-70+ years lifetime. I'd build in future expandability. Don't have to actually use it in full configuration, but it's a hell of a lot easier in the next 10-15 years to add lanes to the surrounding freeway than it is to underbuild this bridge and then have it be the restriction for a full expansion later on.
Quote from: Sonic99 on September 01, 2024, 01:30:49 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on August 30, 2024, 10:45:15 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2024, 09:38:14 PMI hope the new bridge is six lanes (three in each direction) with breakdown shoulders on both sides.
I get we want to reach for the stars, but that design - 10 lanes wide total, would be a bridge 2.5 times wider than the previous bridge of 4 lanes.
And there's a considerable distance on both sides of the Key Bridge location which remain 4 lanes total, including the Curtis Creek Drawbridges to the south and several bridges to the north.
There doesn't seem to be any reason why the bridge needs to be 3 lanes wide per direction when the roadway will remain 2 lanes wide per direction on either side of the bridge.
My contention would be that it should be built for way further down the road than any of us can envision. The new bridge should hopefully be 60-70+ years lifetime. I'd build in future expandability. Don't have to actually use it in full configuration, but it's a hell of a lot easier in the next 10-15 years to add lanes to the surrounding freeway than it is to underbuild this bridge and then have it be the restriction for a full expansion later on.
Agreed, and I would also argue that serious consideration for breakdown shoulders is also needed for access by emergency vehicles, especially since this is the designated hazmat crossing of the Patapsco River.
If the areas around the bridge approaches were more residential, I would argue for consideration of a segregated pedestrian facility that would be able to carry foot traffic and bicycles. The industrial nature of the area precludes such a facility from being considered, though, and the MdTA's refusal to provide such a facility on the Nice Bridge is proof of their lack of interest in such a thing.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 30, 2024, 10:45:15 PMThere doesn't seem to be any reason why the bridge needs to be 3 lanes wide per direction when the roadway will remain 2 lanes wide per direction on either side of the bridge.
Plus, there's a trend nowadays called cost-cutting.
I think other people here mentioned that AADTs on the bridge indicated that 4 lanes were sufficient, so I think rebuilding the bridge as 4 lanes with shoulders should be more than enough.
If traffic volumes increase later on, a parallel bridge can be built and then alternate bridge replacements every 50 years or so if they show signs of failing.
If the bridge is built with 2 lanes and a full size right shoulder, then that shoulder becomes the 3rd lane if needed years down the road.
That's how many bridges have been built over the years where an inkling of an expansion could possibly be needed.
The new bridge should definitely be built with more lanes.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2024, 06:28:10 PMThe new bridge should definitely be built with more lanes.
Normally I would agree considering growth in the US minus Wyoming (pun intended) and we should be proactive. However considering the area I see no suburban development taking place anytime soon there so four with possible expansion is fine.
Announcement says four travel lanes. With adequate shoulders, that'd be a great improvement over the original.
"Progressive design-build" makes me nervous. To have the same firm develop, design and construct seems like a very good way to ensure cost overruns (e.g., firm designs a cadillac alternative). Makes me wonder if they allow change orders on top of everything, which would be quite corrupt. There was good reason behind the old rules of design-bid-build to incorporate competition and keep one firm's ability from controlling project cost down to a minimum.
As someone I knew said about design-build projects, "You get it done twice as fast for twice the price."
Now that I'm writing this, I'm happy the thing's getting replaced by 2028, but I see parallels to war profiteering.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2024, 10:34:41 AMIf the bridge is built with 2 lanes and a full size right shoulder, then that shoulder becomes the 3rd lane if needed years down the road.
That's how many bridges have been built over the years where an inkling of an expansion could possibly be needed.
Yep, I was interested to learn this was what was done with the Tydings Bridge early on.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2024, 06:50:45 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2024, 06:28:10 PMThe new bridge should definitely be built with more lanes.
Normally I would agree considering growth in the US minus Wyoming (pun intended) and we should be proactive. However considering the area I see no suburban development taking place anytime soon there so four with possible expansion is fine.
Well yeah I mean at minimum it should be built to be expanded sometime in the future. Im not a fan of removing shoulders to convert to travel lanes however.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Quote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
Quote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
I-97 north had Key Bridge covered up, and on I-95 south approaching I-695 from the north, a Port of Baltimore sign was changed to list all terminals as via I-95 south.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 15, 2024, 08:16:47 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
5 years is a lot of time to get many people lost due to that signage.
But it's just enough time that changing the permanent signage wouldn't be worth it. It would make more sense to install construction signage indicating that the bridge is closed.
Quote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 06:31:03 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 15, 2024, 08:16:47 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
5 years is a lot of time to get many people lost due to that signage.
Your definition of "many" differs from mine.
Quote from: epzik8 on October 15, 2024, 08:35:57 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
I-97 north had Key Bridge covered up, and on I-95 south approaching I-695 from the north, a Port of Baltimore sign was changed to list all terminals as via I-95 south.
All references to now-impossible access via I-695 on I-95 have been covered up since that GSV imagery was captured.
Quote from: Rothman on October 17, 2024, 10:44:51 AMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 06:31:03 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 15, 2024, 08:16:47 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
5 years is a lot of time to get many people lost due to that signage.
Your definition of "many" differs from mine.
Well, you can be like other me and assume that those signs are an atavism with no use in GPS era.
But if you can disregard 5 years of problems with inacurate sign, you can certainly disregard 10 years of problems and not put one at all during the next replacement cycle. Rinse and repeat in 10 years.
Quote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 12:08:18 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 17, 2024, 10:44:51 AMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 06:31:03 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 15, 2024, 08:16:47 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
5 years is a lot of time to get many people lost due to that signage.
Your definition of "many" differs from mine.
Well, you can be like other me and assume that those signs are an atavism with no use in GPS era.
But if you can disregard 5 years of problems with inacurate sign, you can certainly disregard 10 years of problems and not put one at all during the next replacement cycle. Rinse and repeat in 10 years.
Unless there's a plan to rename the new bridge, leaving the existing signs is fine.
@jeffandnicole mentioned that the Key Bridge has been covered on the signs so it's a moot point anyway. But even installing orange-outs over the Key Bridge would be enough if we want to interpret the area as a construction zone.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2024, 12:22:46 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 12:08:18 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 17, 2024, 10:44:51 AMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 06:31:03 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 15, 2024, 08:16:47 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
5 years is a lot of time to get many people lost due to that signage.
Your definition of "many" differs from mine.
Well, you can be like other me and assume that those signs are an atavism with no use in GPS era.
But if you can disregard 5 years of problems with inacurate sign, you can certainly disregard 10 years of problems and not put one at all during the next replacement cycle. Rinse and repeat in 10 years.
Unless there's a plan to rename the new bridge, leaving the existing signs is fine. @jeffandnicole mentioned that the Key Bridge has been covered on the signs so it's a moot point anyway. But even installing orange-outs over the Key Bridge would be enough if we want to interpret the area as a construction zone.
What is your criteria of "being fine" here? Apparently a temporary closure, e.g. due to an accident, warrants VMS at most. Permanent road closure warrants sign change. But what is in between? Should signs be changed for
- 1 month closure
- 6 month
- 1 year
- 5 years
- 10 years
- 25 years
- 100 years
?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Cbo3CiWH5erNAE6b6
Hope they changed this sign. With the bridge out, I-695 don't go to Essex from here.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2024, 02:38:26 PMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/Cbo3CiWH5erNAE6b6
Hope they changed this sign. With the bridge out, I-695 don't go to Essex from here.
I mean, the GSV is from 2022 so I imagine they have.
Quote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 01:48:27 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2024, 12:22:46 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 12:08:18 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 17, 2024, 10:44:51 AMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 06:31:03 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 15, 2024, 08:16:47 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
5 years is a lot of time to get many people lost due to that signage.
Your definition of "many" differs from mine.
Well, you can be like other me and assume that those signs are an atavism with no use in GPS era.
But if you can disregard 5 years of problems with inacurate sign, you can certainly disregard 10 years of problems and not put one at all during the next replacement cycle. Rinse and repeat in 10 years.
Unless there's a plan to rename the new bridge, leaving the existing signs is fine. @jeffandnicole mentioned that the Key Bridge has been covered on the signs so it's a moot point anyway. But even installing orange-outs over the Key Bridge would be enough if we want to interpret the area as a construction zone.
What is your criteria of "being fine" here? Apparently a temporary closure, e.g. due to an accident, warrants VMS at most. Permanent road closure warrants sign change. But what is in between? Should signs be changed for
- 1 month closure
- 6 month
- 1 year
- 5 years
- 10 years
- 25 years
- 100 years
?
MDTA intends to rebuild the bridge, therefor replacing permanent signage for a condition that MDTA intends to reverse is not necessary. Essentially, this is not much different than any other long term construction project, a temporary green-out, or orange-out over 'Key Bridge' is sufficient until the new bridge is completed.
IF MDTA decides for whatever reason to abandon plans to rebuild the bridge, then there would be a case to replace signage, but even then, a green-out would be sufficient until the next signage replacement cycle.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2024, 04:15:16 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 01:48:27 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2024, 12:22:46 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 12:08:18 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 17, 2024, 10:44:51 AMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 06:31:03 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 15, 2024, 08:16:47 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
5 years is a lot of time to get many people lost due to that signage.
Your definition of "many" differs from mine.
Well, you can be like other me and assume that those signs are an atavism with no use in GPS era.
But if you can disregard 5 years of problems with inacurate sign, you can certainly disregard 10 years of problems and not put one at all during the next replacement cycle. Rinse and repeat in 10 years.
Unless there's a plan to rename the new bridge, leaving the existing signs is fine. @jeffandnicole mentioned that the Key Bridge has been covered on the signs so it's a moot point anyway. But even installing orange-outs over the Key Bridge would be enough if we want to interpret the area as a construction zone.
What is your criteria of "being fine" here? Apparently a temporary closure, e.g. due to an accident, warrants VMS at most. Permanent road closure warrants sign change. But what is in between? Should signs be changed for
- 1 month closure
- 6 month
- 1 year
- 5 years
- 10 years
- 25 years
- 100 years
?
MDTA intends to rebuild the bridge, therefor replacing permanent signage for a condition that MDTA intends to reverse is not necessary. Essentially, this is not much different than any other long term construction project, a temporary green-out, or orange-out over 'Key Bridge' is sufficient until the new bridge is completed.
IF MDTA decides for whatever reason to abandon plans to rebuild the bridge, then there would be a case to replace signage, but even then, a green-out would be sufficient until the next signage replacement cycle.
Next question is about the lifetime of those stickers...
Quote from: kalvado on October 18, 2024, 09:12:17 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2024, 04:15:16 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 01:48:27 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2024, 12:22:46 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 12:08:18 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 17, 2024, 10:44:51 AMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 06:31:03 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 15, 2024, 08:16:47 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
5 years is a lot of time to get many people lost due to that signage.
Your definition of "many" differs from mine.
Well, you can be like other me and assume that those signs are an atavism with no use in GPS era.
But if you can disregard 5 years of problems with inacurate sign, you can certainly disregard 10 years of problems and not put one at all during the next replacement cycle. Rinse and repeat in 10 years.
Unless there's a plan to rename the new bridge, leaving the existing signs is fine. @jeffandnicole mentioned that the Key Bridge has been covered on the signs so it's a moot point anyway. But even installing orange-outs over the Key Bridge would be enough if we want to interpret the area as a construction zone.
What is your criteria of "being fine" here? Apparently a temporary closure, e.g. due to an accident, warrants VMS at most. Permanent road closure warrants sign change. But what is in between? Should signs be changed for
- 1 month closure
- 6 month
- 1 year
- 5 years
- 10 years
- 25 years
- 100 years
?
MDTA intends to rebuild the bridge, therefor replacing permanent signage for a condition that MDTA intends to reverse is not necessary. Essentially, this is not much different than any other long term construction project, a temporary green-out, or orange-out over 'Key Bridge' is sufficient until the new bridge is completed.
IF MDTA decides for whatever reason to abandon plans to rebuild the bridge, then there would be a case to replace signage, but even then, a green-out would be sufficient until the next signage replacement cycle.
Next question is about the lifetime of those stickers...
CalTrans is happy to report that greenouts can be left in place for decades.
Quote from: kalvado on October 18, 2024, 09:12:17 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2024, 04:15:16 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 01:48:27 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2024, 12:22:46 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 12:08:18 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 17, 2024, 10:44:51 AMQuote from: kalvado on October 17, 2024, 06:31:03 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 15, 2024, 08:16:47 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 15, 2024, 07:01:53 AMQuote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2024, 04:59:57 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.
Were any signs actually changed?
Not surprising. Unless they plan to abandon rebuilding the bridge, there's no point to change the signage.
5 years is a lot of time to get many people lost due to that signage.
Your definition of "many" differs from mine.
Well, you can be like other me and assume that those signs are an atavism with no use in GPS era.
But if you can disregard 5 years of problems with inacurate sign, you can certainly disregard 10 years of problems and not put one at all during the next replacement cycle. Rinse and repeat in 10 years.
Unless there's a plan to rename the new bridge, leaving the existing signs is fine. @jeffandnicole mentioned that the Key Bridge has been covered on the signs so it's a moot point anyway. But even installing orange-outs over the Key Bridge would be enough if we want to interpret the area as a construction zone.
What is your criteria of "being fine" here? Apparently a temporary closure, e.g. due to an accident, warrants VMS at most. Permanent road closure warrants sign change. But what is in between? Should signs be changed for
- 1 month closure
- 6 month
- 1 year
- 5 years
- 10 years
- 25 years
- 100 years
?
MDTA intends to rebuild the bridge, therefor replacing permanent signage for a condition that MDTA intends to reverse is not necessary. Essentially, this is not much different than any other long term construction project, a temporary green-out, or orange-out over 'Key Bridge' is sufficient until the new bridge is completed.
IF MDTA decides for whatever reason to abandon plans to rebuild the bridge, then there would be a case to replace signage, but even then, a green-out would be sufficient until the next signage replacement cycle.
Next question is about the lifetime of those stickers...
They're usually not stickers. They're often green plates, rivited onto the sign. If route shields can be held by rivits for decades, greenouts can as well.
USDOJ reaches settlement with operator (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-reaches-settlement-over-100m-civil-lawsuit-against-owner-and-operator-vessel-destroyed)
Funds from this settlement would go to Federal clean-up and recovery efforts for the Key Bridge collapse.
There is a separate suit ongoing by Maryland that would help fund the reconstruction of the bridge.
View to the southwest from my cruise ship a couple weeks ago. A couple concrete barriers have been placed across the eastbound lanes to prevent any vehicles from flying off the end.
(https://i.imgur.com/nbCC71H.jpeg)
Why does this picture make me think of Evel Knievel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evel_Knievel? This seems like something that would have been in his wheelhouse.
I was thinking Dukes of Hazard.
On I-695 Inner at I-95 (Exit 33) as of 10/14/2024 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10221549121197895&set=a.10221551880186868)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54119413465_82eae1d54a_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54118095647_5cac6e796b_c.jpg)
That dancing arrow certainly makes for an ugly sign in the second image.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2024, 06:28:10 PMThe new bridge should definitely be built with more lanes.
If the MdTA sought to build a replacement Key Bridge with more lanes, that would trigger a slew of additional time consuming environmental review processes, whereas if they replaced it in-kind (meaning a facility with the same number of lanes as the destroyed predecessor), they can avoid those reviews.
If the replacement Key bridge does indeed get reconstructed with 100% federal funding, as the current President and Maryland's Congressional delegation has sought, would this in turn mean that the MdTA could not subsequently resume charging a toll on the new span once it has been opened?
Historically, other facilities have historically dropped tolling once they were expanded through mostly federal funding (the first expansion of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel comes to mind).
Quote from: hwyfan on November 15, 2024, 02:58:00 PMIf the replacement Key bridge does indeed get reconstructed with 100% federal funding, as the current President and Maryland's Congressional delegation has sought, would this in turn mean that the MdTA could not subsequently resume charging a toll on the new span once it has been opened?
Historically, other facilities have historically dropped tolling once they were expanded through mostly federal funding (the first expansion of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel comes to mind).
Doubtful, given the extraordinary circumstances involved. If anything, I imagine MDTA will be hiking tolls sometime in the near future between this, the potential upcoming Bay Bridge replacements, debt from the recently-replaced Nice Bridge, and ongoing ETL projects along the I-95/JFK Highway corridor. It's been a long time since the MDTA hiked tolls, in fact the last adjustment was actually a
decrease for all MD E-ZPass rates and cash rates at the Bay Bridge only by former Governor Hogan in 2015.
The Coast Guard published the conceptual design for the new bridge:
https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=90657&Source=/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=90657
Direct link to PDF: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/bridges/publicNotices/D05_PN09-24_FrancisScottKey_PatapscoRiver_MD.pdf
Some takeaways:
* the new bridge will be a cable-stayed bridge with a 1,400 ft center span (up from 1,200 ft)
* the new vertical bridge clearance will be 230 ft (up from 185 ft)
* the overall length of the bridge is significantly longer from abutment to abutment at 12,765 ft (up from 8,636 ft).
* the new bridge will feature four lanes and shoulders
Cable stayed?...how unoriginal.
I'm not that surprised that the new bridge will be a cable-stayed bridge with a longer span and a higher clearance over the water as well as the same number of lanes with shoulders...
Quote from: Rothman on November 17, 2024, 07:05:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 05:45:01 PMCable stayed?...how unoriginal.
Keeps the price tag lower.
Yes, they are cost efficient and it isn't a surprise one chosen as the quick route to a fix. All the same the cable stayed design aesthetic has pretty much lost all the charm it once had.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 07:10:03 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 17, 2024, 07:05:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 05:45:01 PMCable stayed?...how unoriginal.
Keeps the price tag lower.
Yes, they are cost efficient and it isn't a surprise one chosen as the quick route to a fix. All the same the cable stayed design aesthetic has pretty much lost all the charm it once had.
Maybe if bridge designers could find a way to make the towers look like something other than a flat, solid box. Do the requirements of building a cable-stayed bridge make it more challenging to add any embellishments, or modify the design of the towers?
I understand the trend shifting to cheaper, more utilitarian bridge designs, but there should be some allowances for aesthetics since they often become landmarks for the area. Compared to suspension bridges, you can tell them apart pretty easy just by looking at them, different paint, shape / molding of the towers, but the cable-stayed bridges are falling into a rut of gray concrete and white cables, and a handful of variations to the towers.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on November 18, 2024, 08:59:02 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 07:10:03 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 17, 2024, 07:05:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 05:45:01 PMCable stayed?...how unoriginal.
Keeps the price tag lower.
Yes, they are cost efficient and it isn't a surprise one chosen as the quick route to a fix. All the same the cable stayed design aesthetic has pretty much lost all the charm it once had.
Maybe if bridge designers could find a way to make the towers look like something other than a flat, solid box. Do the requirements of building a cable-stayed bridge make it more challenging to add any embellishments, or modify the design of the towers?
I understand the trend shifting to cheaper, more utilitarian bridge designs, but there should be some allowances for aesthetics since they often become landmarks for the area. Compared to suspension bridges, you can tell them apart pretty easy just by looking at them, different paint, shape / molding of the towers, but the cable-stayed bridges are falling into a rut of gray concrete and white cables, and a handful of variations to the towers.
I don't know if it's a trend, but rather what today's technology allows and the costs of materials for the era. It's not often you'll see a transportation department choose something unusually expensive just to make it a landmark bridge.
Not anymore anyways. Then again, this isn't the project to try build a signature bridge.
Why not add a lane now and plan for growth?
Safety improvement as the old bridge didn't have shoulders.
True, they're trying to get it fixed quickly.
But generally speaking, the cable-stayed has developed a monotonous look.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 18, 2024, 10:29:08 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on November 18, 2024, 08:59:02 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 07:10:03 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 17, 2024, 07:05:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 05:45:01 PMCable stayed?...how unoriginal.
Keeps the price tag lower.
Yes, they are cost efficient and it isn't a surprise one chosen as the quick route to a fix. All the same the cable stayed design aesthetic has pretty much lost all the charm it once had.
Maybe if bridge designers could find a way to make the towers look like something other than a flat, solid box. Do the requirements of building a cable-stayed bridge make it more challenging to add any embellishments, or modify the design of the towers?
I understand the trend shifting to cheaper, more utilitarian bridge designs, but there should be some allowances for aesthetics since they often become landmarks for the area. Compared to suspension bridges, you can tell them apart pretty easy just by looking at them, different paint, shape / molding of the towers, but the cable-stayed bridges are falling into a rut of gray concrete and white cables, and a handful of variations to the towers.
I don't know if it's a trend, but rather what today's technology allows and the costs of materials for the era. It's not often you'll see a transportation department choose something unusually expensive just to make it a landmark bridge.
One only has to take a look at the debacle that was the replacement eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to see why transportation departments would be spooked away from building a signature span. The original planned replacement was to be a simple viaduct, and it ended up becoming a single-tower self-anchored suspension bridge. It is a beautiful bridge to look at, and quite striking to drive across, especially heading in the Eastbound direction. But it was completed years late and billions over-budget. You can make arguments either way on whether the added time and expense was truly worth it, but it feels like we are entering another austerity era and I don't see those sorts of expenditures coming from any public agency any time soon.
Quote from: jdbx on November 18, 2024, 12:41:12 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on November 18, 2024, 10:29:08 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on November 18, 2024, 08:59:02 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 07:10:03 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 17, 2024, 07:05:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 05:45:01 PMCable stayed?...how unoriginal.
Keeps the price tag lower.
Yes, they are cost efficient and it isn't a surprise one chosen as the quick route to a fix. All the same the cable stayed design aesthetic has pretty much lost all the charm it once had.
Maybe if bridge designers could find a way to make the towers look like something other than a flat, solid box. Do the requirements of building a cable-stayed bridge make it more challenging to add any embellishments, or modify the design of the towers?
I understand the trend shifting to cheaper, more utilitarian bridge designs, but there should be some allowances for aesthetics since they often become landmarks for the area. Compared to suspension bridges, you can tell them apart pretty easy just by looking at them, different paint, shape / molding of the towers, but the cable-stayed bridges are falling into a rut of gray concrete and white cables, and a handful of variations to the towers.
I don't know if it's a trend, but rather what today's technology allows and the costs of materials for the era. It's not often you'll see a transportation department choose something unusually expensive just to make it a landmark bridge.
One only has to take a look at the debacle that was the replacement eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to see why transportation departments would be spooked away from building a signature span. The original planned replacement was to be a simple viaduct, and it ended up becoming a single-tower self-anchored suspension bridge. It is a beautiful bridge to look at, and quite striking to drive across, especially heading in the Eastbound direction. But it was completed years late and billions over-budget. You can make arguments either way on whether the added time and expense was truly worth it, but it feels like we are entering another austerity era and I don't see those sorts of expenditures coming from any public agency any time soon.
Another point, a lot of the famous suspension bridges originated at the city or state level, so there may be more incentive to create something more aesthetically pleasing.
Are the proposed center span tower piers located in water whose depth is shallow enough to cause a large cargo ship to run aground if it were to have a mechanical failure similar to the Dali?
Quote from: longhorn on November 18, 2024, 11:46:16 AMWhy not add a lane now and plan for growth?
Because doing so would be more than an in-kind replacement (meaning no more than the 4 lanes of the former bridge). Should they seek to add lanes beyond that to the replacement span, new environmental impact studies would have to be conducted.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on November 17, 2024, 06:02:31 PMI'm not that surprised that the new bridge will be a cable-stayed bridge with a longer span and a higher clearance over the water as well as the same number of lanes with shoulders...
Neither am I; in fact, I'm being led to believe that whoever won the contract to rebuild the whole thing would make it into a cable-stayed bridge. Hopefully, the new bridge will complement the Baltimore skyline as well as the old one did.
Quote from: hwyfan on November 18, 2024, 06:00:04 PMBecause doing so would be more than an in-kind replacement (meaning no more than the 4 lanes of the former bridge). Should they seek to add lanes beyond that to the replacement span, new environmental impact studies would have to be conducted.
Wasn't the replacement bridge for I-35W over the Mississippi wider than the original? I thought one of the damaged bridges around New Orleans got rebuilt wider after Hurricane Katrina?
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 18, 2024, 09:53:37 PMQuote from: hwyfan on November 18, 2024, 06:00:04 PMBecause doing so would be more than an in-kind replacement (meaning no more than the 4 lanes of the former bridge). Should they seek to add lanes beyond that to the replacement span, new environmental impact studies would have to be conducted.
Wasn't the replacement bridge for I-35W over the Mississippi wider than the original? I thought one of the damaged bridges around New Orleans got rebuilt wider after Hurricane Katrina?
Both of which were narrow with four lanes, the I-10 bridges over Lake Pontchartrain and the I-10 bridges over Escambia Bay were both replaced with wider spans following Hurricanes Katrina and Ivan respectively. Same with the narrow four lane crossing of U.S. 90 over the Back Bay of Biloxi. Replaced with a six lane span after Katrina. Perhaps environmental studies to six lane all of those crossings were previously conducted in anticipation of eventual replacements? If so, hurricanes may have inadvertently accelerated the time lines.
Quote from: hwyfan on November 18, 2024, 06:00:04 PMQuote from: longhorn on November 18, 2024, 11:46:16 AMWhy not add a lane now and plan for growth?
Because doing so would be more than an in-kind replacement (meaning no more than the 4 lanes of the former bridge). Should they seek to add lanes beyond that to the replacement span, new environmental impact studies would have to be conducted.
That is sad and pathetic.
They should at least make this bridge 3 to 4 lanes each way with a pedestrian bridge.
Quote from: longhorn on November 19, 2024, 12:48:08 AMQuote from: hwyfan on November 18, 2024, 06:00:04 PMQuote from: longhorn on November 18, 2024, 11:46:16 AMWhy not add a lane now and plan for growth?
Because doing so would be more than an in-kind replacement (meaning no more than the 4 lanes of the former bridge). Should they seek to add lanes beyond that to the replacement span, new environmental impact studies would have to be conducted.
That is sad and pathetic.
Maryland received a categorical exclusion (CE) issued by the Federal Highway Administration for this replacement project as proposed.
The FHWA finding is quoted below.
On July 23, 2024, MDTA and the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (SHA) received key federal environmental approvals for the reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. FHWA has issued a Categorical Exclusion (CE) classification and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval for the I-695 Francis Scott Key Bridge Rebuild Project.
The federal agency determined that because the replacement Key Bridge will be within the former bridge's right-of-way and have the same capacity of four travel lanes, it is not anticipated to significantly impact community, natural or cultural resources. The approval document can be viewed here. The project will have substantial positive transportation and socioeconomic impacts by restoring a critical link in the interstate system. Specifically, the Rebuild Project:
- will not induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area;
- will not cause any relocations of people or businesses;
- will have no effect on travel patterns from pre-collapse conditions; and
- will not impact historic or park and recreational resources.
Source: Key Bridge Rebuild - Equity and Environment (https://www.keybridgerebuild.com/equity-and-environment)
Quote from: hwyfan on November 15, 2024, 02:58:00 PMIf the replacement Key bridge does indeed get reconstructed with 100% federal funding, as the current President and Maryland's Congressional delegation has sought, would this in turn mean that the MdTA could not subsequently resume charging a toll on the new span once it has been opened?
Historically, other facilities have historically dropped tolling once they were expanded through mostly federal funding (the first expansion of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel comes to mind).
Keep in mind that toll is for more than just the bridge itself. The beltway from MD 10 to MD 151 is also part of the toll road and thus supported by those tolls.
Here's the change in jurisdiction on the inner and outer loop of the beltway:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/3mH3cePojbgwtNf77
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gdgG4rimwPChi9QVA
So much for hopes of increased capacity on the replacement bridge. It just goes to show that road geeks are not in charge of transportation policy in the country (maybe that's not a bad thing).
Anything other than replacing what was already there would likely derail any momentum in getting the bridge rebuilt ASAP.
From my -limited- understanding of the former bridge was that there was never much issue with congestion and that it had adequate capacity. So, adding anything more than wider shoulders would cause an unnecessary aforementioned delay in what is considered an emergency rebuild, not to mention the associated cost.
Even while I lament the blandness of cable-stayed bridge designs, I understand that they don't have the luxury of adding embellishments if the goal is to get the bridge rebuilt quickly.
Can someone show their studies of what growth will be occurring in the next 25 years? 50 years? 75 years?
And just a reminder: "Because it should be wider" is not a study.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on November 18, 2024, 08:59:02 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 07:10:03 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 17, 2024, 07:05:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 05:45:01 PMCable stayed?...how unoriginal.
Keeps the price tag lower.
Yes, they are cost efficient and it isn't a surprise one chosen as the quick route to a fix. All the same the cable stayed design aesthetic has pretty much lost all the charm it once had.
Maybe if bridge designers could find a way to make the towers look like something other than a flat, solid box. Do the requirements of building a cable-stayed bridge make it more challenging to add any embellishments, or modify the design of the towers?
I understand the trend shifting to cheaper, more utilitarian bridge designs, but there should be some allowances for aesthetics since they often become landmarks for the area. Compared to suspension bridges, you can tell them apart pretty easy just by looking at them, different paint, shape / molding of the towers, but the cable-stayed bridges are falling into a rut of gray concrete and white cables, and a handful of variations to the towers.
The Sunshine Skyway has yellow cables.
The Varina-Enon Bridge spanning the James River below Richmond, VA has blue cables.
Quote from: ixnay on November 21, 2024, 12:49:43 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on November 18, 2024, 08:59:02 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 07:10:03 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 17, 2024, 07:05:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 05:45:01 PMCable stayed?...how unoriginal.
Keeps the price tag lower.
Yes, they are cost efficient and it isn't a surprise one chosen as the quick route to a fix. All the same the cable stayed design aesthetic has pretty much lost all the charm it once had.
Maybe if bridge designers could find a way to make the towers look like something other than a flat, solid box. Do the requirements of building a cable-stayed bridge make it more challenging to add any embellishments, or modify the design of the towers?
I understand the trend shifting to cheaper, more utilitarian bridge designs, but there should be some allowances for aesthetics since they often become landmarks for the area. Compared to suspension bridges, you can tell them apart pretty easy just by looking at them, different paint, shape / molding of the towers, but the cable-stayed bridges are falling into a rut of gray concrete and white cables, and a handful of variations to the towers.
The Sunshine Skyway has yellow cables.
The Varina-Enon Bridge spanning the James River below Richmond, VA has blue cables.
But see also the Ravenel Bridge (Charleston), Talmadge Bridge (Savannah), Sidney Lanier Bridge (Brunswick, GA), Goethals Bridge (New York), Veterans Mem. Bridge (Stubenville, OH), Dames Point Bridge (Jacksonville, FL)
Quote from: PColumbus73 on November 21, 2024, 02:24:22 PMQuote from: ixnay on November 21, 2024, 12:49:43 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on November 18, 2024, 08:59:02 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 07:10:03 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 17, 2024, 07:05:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2024, 05:45:01 PMCable stayed?...how unoriginal.
Keeps the price tag lower.
Yes, they are cost efficient and it isn't a surprise one chosen as the quick route to a fix. All the same the cable stayed design aesthetic has pretty much lost all the charm it once had.
Maybe if bridge designers could find a way to make the towers look like something other than a flat, solid box. Do the requirements of building a cable-stayed bridge make it more challenging to add any embellishments, or modify the design of the towers?
I understand the trend shifting to cheaper, more utilitarian bridge designs, but there should be some allowances for aesthetics since they often become landmarks for the area. Compared to suspension bridges, you can tell them apart pretty easy just by looking at them, different paint, shape / molding of the towers, but the cable-stayed bridges are falling into a rut of gray concrete and white cables, and a handful of variations to the towers.
The Sunshine Skyway has yellow cables.
The Varina-Enon Bridge spanning the James River below Richmond, VA has blue cables.
But see also the Ravenel Bridge (Charleston), Talmadge Bridge (Savannah), Sidney Lanier Bridge (Brunswick, GA), Goethals Bridge (New York), Veterans Mem. Bridge (Stubenville, OH), Dames Point Bridge (Jacksonville, FL)
Not to mention the Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge (St. Louis), the eastern half of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (Oakland, CA), Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge (Tarrytown, NY), and Leonard B. Zakim Memorial Bridge (Boston)
Then there is the 6th Street viaduct in Milwaukee, where there are a pair of towers which are shorter, but not true vertical as they are angled parallel to the road.
Point being that bridges like the Sunshine Skyway and the Varina-Enon Bridge are more the exceptions against the trend of the gray / white scheme that have become the default. Which is unfortunate, because a cable-stayed bridge that incorporated themes from the Bay Bridge, Delaware Memorial, or Ben Franklin bridges could look great in Baltimore.
Doing my best to detour into no-no territory, but regarding the "copy/paste" cable stayed bridge design, I would venture to say that any attempt to be more intricate or unique would be met with massive outcry by the segment of our population who believe 95% of Government spending is wasteful and unneccesary. "What do you mean you put a colored light bulb on it, see, the gov't is always wasting our money on stupid things. Bet that contractor has an under the table relationship with the Governor!"
I love seeing unique design and architecture in highways, but I also am well aware of how some of our "wants and desires" as enthusiasts would be fought heavily by other segments of our society.
The suspension bridges of the early/mid 1900's weren't really designed as statement or iconic bridges; they were designed as bridges to facilitate traffic using the methods and materials known at the time. And the bridges have actually changed designs or names over time. The George Washington Bridge was only 1 level, the Ben Franklin Bridge had a different name and had street cars on it, etc. Only over time did they become historic structures representing the cities they are in.
You also have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was a statement bridge in its own right.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2024, 12:17:30 AMYou also have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was a statement bridge in its own right.
I assume you refer to the TNB that collapsed (aka Galloping Gertie).
Quote from: ixnay on November 25, 2024, 07:12:25 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2024, 12:17:30 AMYou also have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was a statement bridge in its own right.
I assume you refer to the TNB that collapsed (aka Galloping Gertie).
The one and only!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2024, 12:17:30 AMThe suspension bridges of the early/mid 1900's weren't really designed as statement or iconic bridges; they were designed as bridges to facilitate traffic using the methods and materials known at the time. And the bridges have actually changed designs or names over time. The George Washington Bridge was only 1 level, the Ben Franklin Bridge had a different name and had street cars on it, etc. Only over time did they become historic structures representing the cities they are in.
You also have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was a statement bridge in its own right.
Even though they weren't intended to make a statement, the George Washington Bridge and the Ben Franklin Bridge are distinctive. At the very least, we can tell the two apart from each other. The Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge started construction at the same time, but it the two bridges don't look like they have carbon-copied towers. Imagine if both bridges had the Golden Gate's towers, or vice-versa.
Some of the newer cable-stayed bridges look as though someone went to Walmart and just picked one off the shelf.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 02, 2024, 08:50:34 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2024, 12:17:30 AMThe suspension bridges of the early/mid 1900's weren't really designed as statement or iconic bridges; they were designed as bridges to facilitate traffic using the methods and materials known at the time. And the bridges have actually changed designs or names over time. The George Washington Bridge was only 1 level, the Ben Franklin Bridge had a different name and had street cars on it, etc. Only over time did they become historic structures representing the cities they are in.
You also have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was a statement bridge in its own right.
Even though they weren't intended to make a statement, the George Washington Bridge and the Ben Franklin Bridge are distinctive. At the very least, we can tell the two apart from each other. The Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge started construction at the same time, but it the two bridges don't look like they have carbon-copied towers. Imagine if both bridges had the Golden Gate's towers, or vice-versa.
Some of the newer cable-stayed bridges look as though someone went to Walmart and just picked one off the shelf.
You do see what you're doing there, right? You intentionally choosing iconic bridges, and remarking what makes them distinctive. You're ignoring the numerous other suspension bridges that are similar-looking to each other.
Then when you reference cable-stayed bridges, you're intentionally referencing the similar-looking ones, and ignoring the distinctive bridges.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 03, 2024, 07:55:35 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on December 02, 2024, 08:50:34 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2024, 12:17:30 AMThe suspension bridges of the early/mid 1900's weren't really designed as statement or iconic bridges; they were designed as bridges to facilitate traffic using the methods and materials known at the time. And the bridges have actually changed designs or names over time. The George Washington Bridge was only 1 level, the Ben Franklin Bridge had a different name and had street cars on it, etc. Only over time did they become historic structures representing the cities they are in.
You also have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was a statement bridge in its own right.
Even though they weren't intended to make a statement, the George Washington Bridge and the Ben Franklin Bridge are distinctive. At the very least, we can tell the two apart from each other. The Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge started construction at the same time, but it the two bridges don't look like they have carbon-copied towers. Imagine if both bridges had the Golden Gate's towers, or vice-versa.
Some of the newer cable-stayed bridges look as though someone went to Walmart and just picked one off the shelf.
You do see what you're doing there, right? You intentionally choosing iconic bridges, and remarking what makes them distinctive. You're ignoring the numerous other suspension bridges that are similar-looking to each other.
Then when you reference cable-stayed bridges, you're intentionally referencing the similar-looking ones, and ignoring the distinctive bridges.
However, you also made the statement that suspension bridges weren't necessarily intended as iconic bridges. The reason I brought up the Golden Gate and Bay bridges is that they started construction at around the same time in the same region to try to make a fair comparison.
The Verrazzano, Thongs Neck, and Bronx-Whitestone are almost triplets of each other in terms of appearance, so to your point, yes for every Golden Gate Bridge there is a suspension bridge that is less distinctive.
Also to your point, modern cable-stayed bridges haven't had time to become notable. I think the Zakim and Ravenel bridges could be considered are leading the way in that respect.
However, difference I see between suspension and the cable-stayed bridges is that with a suspension bridge, even with the less iconic ones, there is greater variety in their designs, from the towers to the colors, versus the cable-stayed, which appear to have fallen into a rut of grey/white, and flat rectangular concrete towers.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 04, 2024, 12:18:24 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 03, 2024, 07:55:35 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on December 02, 2024, 08:50:34 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2024, 12:17:30 AMThe suspension bridges of the early/mid 1900's weren't really designed as statement or iconic bridges; they were designed as bridges to facilitate traffic using the methods and materials known at the time. And the bridges have actually changed designs or names over time. The George Washington Bridge was only 1 level, the Ben Franklin Bridge had a different name and had street cars on it, etc. Only over time did they become historic structures representing the cities they are in.
You also have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was a statement bridge in its own right.
Even though they weren't intended to make a statement, the George Washington Bridge and the Ben Franklin Bridge are distinctive. At the very least, we can tell the two apart from each other. The Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge started construction at the same time, but it the two bridges don't look like they have carbon-copied towers. Imagine if both bridges had the Golden Gate's towers, or vice-versa.
Some of the newer cable-stayed bridges look as though someone went to Walmart and just picked one off the shelf.
You do see what you're doing there, right? You intentionally choosing iconic bridges, and remarking what makes them distinctive. You're ignoring the numerous other suspension bridges that are similar-looking to each other.
Then when you reference cable-stayed bridges, you're intentionally referencing the similar-looking ones, and ignoring the distinctive bridges.
However, you also made the statement that suspension bridges weren't necessarily intended as iconic bridges. The reason I brought up the Golden Gate and Bay bridges is that they started construction at around the same time in the same region to try to make a fair comparison.
The Verrazzano, Thongs Neck, and Bronx-Whitestone are almost triplets of each other in terms of appearance, so to your point, yes for every Golden Gate Bridge there is a suspension bridge that is less distinctive.
Also to your point, modern cable-stayed bridges haven't had time to become notable. I think the Zakim and Ravenel bridges could be considered are leading the way in that respect.
However, difference I see between suspension and the cable-stayed bridges is that with a suspension bridge, even with the less iconic ones, there is greater variety in their designs, from the towers to the colors, versus the cable-stayed, which appear to have fallen into a rut of grey/white, and flat rectangular concrete towers.
Some would liken the bolded to the concrete donut multipurpose (baseball, football and soccer in the same venue) stadia built in the USA in the '60s and early '70s, stadiums I grew up reading about, often watching games televised from, and sometimes attending games in (and I admit, caring no more about their aesthetics then or now BION than I do re cable-stayed bridges). Just about all those stadiums have met their maker by now, and one that hasn't, RFK in DC, will soon enough have a date with the wrecking ball (or maybe the dynamite unless the NIMBYs prevent its implosion).
Today is the sort of day on which the people of Baltimore, and long-distance traffic passing through the area, must sorely miss the bridge. It seems there was a truck fire at the entrance to the southbound left-side bore (Bore #2) at the Fort McHenry Tunnel. Reports are that it's taking two hours from White Marsh to either of the tunnels.
https://x.com/deedeverell/status/1864661870222700944
Looks like it happened directly under the toll gantry - from peeking at the nearby traffic cam, the truck is mostly disintegrated from the fire and the gantry is blackened from the smoke. Bore #1 (the other southbound bore) has since reopened so presumably the toll collection equipment for those lanes is fine, but wonder if there is any damage to the equipment both on the pavement and on the gantry for bore #2.
(https://i.imgur.com/bvLrkDt.jpeg)
That truck makes me think of some of the ones that hit the infamous 11-foot-8 bridge in Durham.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2024, 09:39:06 AMToday is the sort of day on which the people of Baltimore, and long-distance traffic passing through the area, must sorely miss the bridge. It seems there was a truck fire at the entrance to the southbound left-side bore (Bore #2) at the Fort McHenry Tunnel. Reports are that it's taking two hours from White Marsh to either of the tunnels.
At least there's still options. If it occurred north or south of 695, there's real no easy alternative.
Dave Statter has video of the fire:
https://x.com/STATter911/status/1864713889469923500
That video confirms as well, but MDTA police did release a statement (https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-police-news/mdta-police-investigating-crash-i-95-baltimore-city) noting that the truck initially struck the attenuator at the gore between bores 1 & 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2645993,-76.5654288,3a,39.4y,203.43h,79.66t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVP4qAzR9ObrITSxM_LTvog!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D10.342273293875593%26panoid%3DVP4qAzR9ObrITSxM_LTvog%26yaw%3D203.42795484154692!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D), then caught fire afterward. Also caught a screenshot from earlier showing the toll equipment being inspected after removal of the truck:
(https://i.imgur.com/L4JU0jE.png)
I think there's somewhat of a signage and lane marking issue approaching this split, which isn't apparent by slow-rolling on GSV.
Coming in hot at 55 mph or greater, there's a single diagram sign showing the split, tucked between two other signs. The "1/4 Mile Ahead" sign really doesn't represent anything since you're already on 95 South (its only significance is to point out the tolling point is in 1/4 mile, which most motorists won't realize they're going under). The Exit 53 side to the right doesn't inform motorists to be in the right lane, which is necessary as the exit is just after the tunnel. https://maps.app.goo.gl/PHU7BcPFCX2BeJv2A A solid line starts to separate the 4 lanes into 2, and then there's a slight curve to the right.
On the NB side, the separation occurs a little earlier, and the split contains an asphalt median that makes it a bit easier to distinguish. The overhead sign showing the split only contains that one sign. https://maps.app.goo.gl/gB149jSeK24dCPtt5
^
In addition to your points, the SB configuration is still relatively new following the AET conversion + toll plaza removal (previously the split was right after the toll plaza while traffic was still getting up to speed, and was more-or-less determined by which toll lane you used), whereas the NB configuration has always been that way.
Speaking of AET, from checking the same traffic cam I posted earlier it looks like the tolling equipment was indeed damaged by the fire - everything above bore #2 appears to have been removed with a short-term replacement of just 2 transponder readers (1 over each lane). So E-ZPass users are still getting captured which is probably the bulk of users, but nothing to capture toll-by-plate until the equipment is fully replaced.
(https://i.imgur.com/RuJnN1W.jpeg)
Quote from: jmacswimmer on December 12, 2024, 11:02:33 AM^
In addition to your points, the SB configuration is still relatively new following the AET conversion + toll plaza removal (previously the split was right after the toll plaza while traffic was still getting up to speed, and was more-or-less determined by which toll lane you used), whereas the NB configuration has always been that way.
Speaking of AET, from checking the same traffic cam I posted earlier it looks like the tolling equipment was indeed damaged by the fire - everything above bore #2 appears to have been removed with a short-term replacement of just 2 transponder readers (1 over each lane). So E-ZPass users are still getting captured which is probably the bulk of users, but nothing to capture toll-by-plate until the equipment is fully replaced.
(https://i.imgur.com/RuJnN1W.jpeg)
Good to know... :cool: ;-)
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2024, 09:39:06 AMToday is the sort of day on which the people of Baltimore, and long-distance traffic passing through the area, must sorely miss the bridge. It seems there was a truck fire at the entrance to the southbound left-side bore (Bore #2) at the Fort McHenry Tunnel. Reports are that it's taking two hours from White Marsh to either of the tunnels.
https://x.com/deedeverell/status/1864661870222700944
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2024, 01:01:07 PMDave Statter has video of the fire:
https://x.com/STATter911/status/1864713889469923500
Can't catch a break at these harbor crossings, with a bridge collapse and tunnel fire... X-(
At least it was great to see the I-895 reconstruction get done before any of the above happened.
Quote from: Henry on December 13, 2024, 10:20:12 PMCan't catch a break at these harbor crossings, with a bridge collapse and tunnel fire... X-(
At least it was great to see the I-895 reconstruction get done before any of the above happened.
The bridge collapse is closing I-695 for 5 years.
The truck fire closed I-95 for 2 hours. And it didn't occur in the tunnel.
Not really in the same league of comparisons.
Let's hope it's as little as five years. :wave:
Looks like work to rebuild this bridge. Will begin as soon as January: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/baltimore-key-bridge-construction-january/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 24, 2024, 10:03:17 PMLooks like work to rebuild this bridge. Will begin as soon as January: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/baltimore-key-bridge-construction-january/
That isn't a very accurate story. You can find hundreds of projects in very preliminary planning stages, and many of those never make it to construction.
Quote"This is a big deal for not just Maryland, but our nation's economy..."
How? Because it shortens a trip by 45 minutes? With the waterway navigable again, there's little else that bridge construction will do for the nation's economy. And again - say to yourself what a bridge does to the
*nations* economy. It may help the local economy, but I'm pretty sure Oregon, California and Nebraska aren't suffering due to the bridge not being in service currently.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/preconstruction-work-begin-january-rebuild-collapsed-baltimore-bridge-117085043
This one admits it's pre construction. Not actual.
Regardless of how far along the new bridge plans actually are, I'm just glad Congress (apparently) managed to forget about their differences for long enough to include it in a continuing resolution.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 24, 2024, 10:31:53 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on December 24, 2024, 10:03:17 PMLooks like work to rebuild this bridge. Will begin as soon as January: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/baltimore-key-bridge-construction-january/
That isn't a very accurate story. You can find hundreds of projects in very preliminary planning stages, and many of those never make it to construction.
Quote"This is a big deal for not just Maryland, but our nation's economy..."
How? Because it shortens a trip by 45 minutes? With the waterway navigable again, there's little else that bridge construction will do for the nation's economy. And again - say to yourself what a bridge does to the *nations* economy. It may help the local economy, but I'm pretty sure Oregon, California and Nebraska aren't suffering due to the bridge not being in service currently.
That is what I say about the NY/NJ Holland Tunnel replacement. (Gateway)
People in NY and NJ kept calling it a "national priority" and for our "national economy".
If our national economy is solely dependent on whether a financial analyst can reach his/her office in over priced Manhattan on time so he/she can live in New Jersey, then we are in a lot of trouble.
Most companies in NYC have already duplicated many of those functions in other cities in the East (for less money)
So really it a "regional priority" in support of a "regional economy".
Quote from: edwaleni on December 25, 2024, 05:24:04 PMThat is what I say about the NY/NJ Holland Tunnel replacement. (Gateway)
People in NY and NJ kept calling it a "national priority" and for our "national economy".
If our national economy is solely dependent on whether a financial analyst can reach his/her office in over priced Manhattan on time so he/she can live in New Jersey, then we are in a lot of trouble.
Most companies in NYC have already duplicated many of those functions in other cities in the East (for less money)
So really it a "regional priority" in support of a "regional economy".
Gateway is not just for commuter trains. Every single train for the Northeast Corridor goes though that tunnel. This seems just one step removed from SP Cook's "Amtrak only serves hobbyists" arguments.
Quote from: vdeane on December 25, 2024, 09:21:47 PMQuote from: edwaleni on December 25, 2024, 05:24:04 PMThat is what I say about the NY/NJ Holland Tunnel replacement. (Gateway)
People in NY and NJ kept calling it a "national priority" and for our "national economy".
If our national economy is solely dependent on whether a financial analyst can reach his/her office in over priced Manhattan on time so he/she can live in New Jersey, then we are in a lot of trouble.
Most companies in NYC have already duplicated many of those functions in other cities in the East (for less money)
So really it a "regional priority" in support of a "regional economy".
Gateway is not just for commuter trains. Every single train for the Northeast Corridor goes though that tunnel. This seems just one step removed from SP Cook's "Amtrak only serves hobbyists" arguments.
I didn't question the need for it to get done, I questioned the titles placed on it.
The Sunshine Skyway took seven years to be rebuilt, and if it does take half that time for the Key Bridge, then it would be great.
Quote from: edwaleni on December 25, 2024, 11:11:30 PMQuote from: vdeane on December 25, 2024, 09:21:47 PMQuote from: edwaleni on December 25, 2024, 05:24:04 PMThat is what I say about the NY/NJ Holland Tunnel replacement. (Gateway)
People in NY and NJ kept calling it a "national priority" and for our "national economy".
If our national economy is solely dependent on whether a financial analyst can reach his/her office in over priced Manhattan on time so he/she can live in New Jersey, then we are in a lot of trouble.
Most companies in NYC have already duplicated many of those functions in other cities in the East (for less money)
So really it a "regional priority" in support of a "regional economy".
Gateway is not just for commuter trains. Every single train for the Northeast Corridor goes though that tunnel. This seems just one step removed from SP Cook's "Amtrak only serves hobbyists" arguments.
I didn't question the need for it to get done, I questioned the titles placed on it.
I get the "National Economy?" part. If I were to somehow try to justify that, it would be that a significant portion of Amtrak's passenger fare revenues are earned from people utilizing trains that go thru this tunnel. Without the tunnel, it would be either impossible or a very large time difference to utilize another crossing. Locally, NJ Transit would lose a very large portion of their fare revenue. Trains to and from NYC are generally the only public transit that actually makes money based on their operating expenses.
But, as in my example, would Oregon, California and Nebraska suffer if this tunnel were to be closed? Unless those revenues are tied to national funding of other needs, probably not.
I want to see a new Key Bridge ASAP. And I hope it is magnificent in design and exceeds the prior one's utility to the greater Baltimore area. It is a major regional arterial and definitely has a strong use case.
It just isn't national in scope. I don't care that Biden/Congress agreed to pay 100% from the Federal coffers which is not the norm. Usually a disaster has to be declared by the state authority, and then the President can authorize a 100% expenditure via FEMA instead of the typical 75%.
President Biden did this in the case of the declared disaster's from hurricanes in Florida.
Quote from: edwaleni on December 26, 2024, 12:45:27 PMI want to see a new Key Bridge ASAP. And I hope it is magnificent in design and exceeds the prior one's utility to the greater Baltimore area. It is a major regional arterial and definitely has a strong use case.
It just isn't national in scope. I don't care that Biden/Congress agreed to pay 100% from the Federal coffers which is not the norm. Usually a disaster has to be declared by the state authority, and then the President can authorize a 100% expenditure via FEMA instead of the typical 75%.
President Biden did this in the case of the declared disaster's from hurricanes in Florida.
From the Federal perspective I think the Port of Baltimore is more important than the bridge itself. It would make sense that the Feds would cover the costs of clearing the bridge and reopening the shipping channel. The bridge is important locally, but aside from disruptions at the port, it wasn't as serious as, say, I-26 & 40 being washed out after the hurricane.
Quote from: epzik8 on December 25, 2024, 10:54:20 AMRegardless of how far along the new bridge plans actually are, I'm just glad Congress (apparently) managed to forget about their differences for long enough to include it in a continuing resolution.
I have to question if its importance is higher than say in Baton Rouge or even Memphis. Especially Baton Rouge needs an additional bride and it would do more to restore traffic to manageable conditions, than this seeming gift to Maryland.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 27, 2024, 08:35:10 AMQuote from: edwaleni on December 26, 2024, 12:45:27 PMI want to see a new Key Bridge ASAP. And I hope it is magnificent in design and exceeds the prior one's utility to the greater Baltimore area. It is a major regional arterial and definitely has a strong use case.
It just isn't national in scope. I don't care that Biden/Congress agreed to pay 100% from the Federal coffers which is not the norm. Usually a disaster has to be declared by the state authority, and then the President can authorize a 100% expenditure via FEMA instead of the typical 75%.
President Biden did this in the case of the declared disaster's from hurricanes in Florida.
From the Federal perspective I think the Port of Baltimore is more important than the bridge itself. It would make sense that the Feds would cover the costs of clearing the bridge and reopening the shipping channel. The bridge is important locally, but aside from disruptions at the port, it wasn't as serious as, say, I-26 & 40 being washed out after the hurricane.
Your comment does prompt me to wonder how much road traffic shipping things to or from the port crosses that bridge. After all, once something is imported, it then has to be taken to wherever it's going to be sold. (Consider the massive numbers of imported cars you can see from the Harbor Tunnel Thruway near the south end of the tunnel.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 01, 2025, 11:48:50 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on December 27, 2024, 08:35:10 AMQuote from: edwaleni on December 26, 2024, 12:45:27 PMI want to see a new Key Bridge ASAP. And I hope it is magnificent in design and exceeds the prior one's utility to the greater Baltimore area. It is a major regional arterial and definitely has a strong use case.
It just isn't national in scope. I don't care that Biden/Congress agreed to pay 100% from the Federal coffers which is not the norm. Usually a disaster has to be declared by the state authority, and then the President can authorize a 100% expenditure via FEMA instead of the typical 75%.
President Biden did this in the case of the declared disaster's from hurricanes in Florida.
From the Federal perspective I think the Port of Baltimore is more important than the bridge itself. It would make sense that the Feds would cover the costs of clearing the bridge and reopening the shipping channel. The bridge is important locally, but aside from disruptions at the port, it wasn't as serious as, say, I-26 & 40 being washed out after the hurricane.
Your comment does prompt me to wonder how much road traffic shipping things to or from the port crosses that bridge. After all, once something is imported, it then has to be taken to wherever it's going to be sold. (Consider the massive numbers of imported cars you can see from the Harbor Tunnel Thruway near the south end of the tunnel.)
The new cars sitting at the BalTerm Terminal at Whetstone Point are being exported. Most likely Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands under the Jones Act.
New imported cars come in at Sparrows Point at the Tradepoint Terminal.
So is it going to be wider, or at the very least, if no additional travel lanes, full shoulders?
When bridges are replaced, such as the former Francis Scott Key Bridge, they should be given full shoulders (if enough space can be provided for such).
Quote from: bluecountry on January 05, 2025, 09:59:17 PMSo is it going to be wider, or at the very least, if no additional travel lanes, full shoulders?
The plans aren't complete yet. They may have a few proposed plans; they may have a public info session. If not, then we'll all see the final design when it's signed off.
My guess - since the feds are committed to paying 100% of the project, Maryland won't be as concerned about cutting costs. As a result, shoulders and a bike/pedestrian path will probably be part of the eventual bridge.
I saw the missing structure from Avelo Flight 525. We flew over Baltimore after taking off from Wilmington and saw the harbor.
It appears they removed the upper portion of the approaches as only the lower halves were seen.
https://x.com/HellgrenWJZ/status/1886826843174518900
I wonder if this design is different from the one released by the Coast Guard in November 2024?
https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=90657&Source=/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=90657
Will it be built with modern lane widths and shoulders? It'd be nice see a bike/pedestrian pathway but the cities should pay for that.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 04, 2025, 04:29:44 PMWill it be built with modern lane widths and shoulders?
Yes, it will be built with a 10-foot shoulder on the right and a 4-foot shoulder on the left.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 04, 2025, 12:36:48 PMhttps://x.com/HellgrenWJZ/status/1886826843174518900
This is surely going to be an elegant complement to the skyline! Someone even suggested lighting it up with the colors of its respective teams, and I think that would be a great idea to do so. And I like that it will be built to modern standards and have a wider navigation channel than the old bridge did, complete with massive dolphins to help prevent another MV Dali.
Quote from: Henry on February 04, 2025, 11:05:42 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on February 04, 2025, 12:36:48 PMhttps://x.com/HellgrenWJZ/status/1886826843174518900
This is surely going to be an elegant complement to the skyline! Someone even suggested lighting it up with the colors of its respective teams, and I think that would be a great idea to do so. And I like that it will be built to modern standards and have a wider navigation channel than the old bridge did, complete with massive dolphins to help prevent another MV Dali.
Any lighting will likely be LED lighting which can be set to any color.
Whatever happened to all the needs for an EIS and increasing the length of time prior to construction if they weren't building exactly what was there before (as in the smaller truss, substandard four lanes no shoulders, etc)? Had that been waived by the feds? And with the completely different administration there now, wouldn't some of the prior promises made not necessary be kept?
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 05, 2025, 11:56:18 AMWhatever happened to all the needs for an EIS and increasing the length of time prior to construction if they weren't building exactly what was there before (as in the smaller truss, substandard four lanes no shoulders, etc)? Had that been waived by the feds? And with the completely different administration there now, wouldn't some of the prior promises made not necessary be kept?
Building in approximately the same footprint doesn't require the project to be so identical that they may as well brush off the original plans and build them again; I believe "same general size/configuration/location but modern standards" still fits the bill.
https://www.marinelink.com/news/usace-grants-permit-reconstruction-523233#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Army%20Corps%20of,the%20lives%20of%20six%20Baltimoreans.
There's another discussion thread about the Key bridge and ship strike assessments.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35814.0
I assume it was posted in the bridges forum to get a broader audience to possibly bring up discussion of the other bridges mentioned, not any specifically, that should have ship strike assessments done.
Quote from: BrianP on March 21, 2025, 10:15:38 AMThere's another discussion thread about the Key bridge and ship strike assessments.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35814.0
I assume it was posted in the bridges forum to get a broader audience to possibly bring up discussion of the other bridges mentioned, not any specifically, that should have ship strike assessments done.
Yeah, I was about to recommend merging the threads, but after relooking at the other one it is fine staying there as-is. -Mark
The same agency that decides what interstate and US routes should be and are numbered sets the guidelines for bridge safety that the NTSB is using.
The National Transportation and Safety Board is looking at other bridges to make sure bridge owners are following AASHTO guidelines for protection against possible ship strikes as the one year anniversary is near.
I just saw a railfan video of a NS Freight train go across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal on a 1966 built lift bridge that has no protection if a ship hits it's towers.
The NTSB didn't include it on its list I don't think
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2025, 08:40:44 PMI just saw a railfan video of a NS Freight train go across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal on a 1966 built lift bridge that has no protection if a ship hits it's towers.
The NTSB didn't include it on its list I don't think
Based on my local look, the NTSB appeared to only consider *fixed* spans with 80' of clearance. I think this is a tremendous oversight.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 05, 2025, 11:56:18 AMWhatever happened to all the needs for an EIS and increasing the length of time prior to construction if they weren't building exactly what was there before (as in the smaller truss, substandard four lanes no shoulders, etc)? Had that been waived by the feds? And with the completely different administration there now, wouldn't some of the prior promises made not necessary be kept?
I think it is abominable that FHWA Maryland Division granted a CATEX for this proposed bridge.
MDTA made a unilateral decision in private board rooms with no public input on the new design.
A crossing of this magnitude is not some routine emergency replacement of a bridge on the order of the collapsed MD-404 Denton bridge in 1976. (My parents retired near there in 1974).
I have my opinion on what alternative should be selected, but the most important thing is to engage the public and the associated resource agencies, and to lay out the alternatives before them and then to make an informed decision by the highway agencies.
Conduct full NEPA EIS process
1) State highway agency prepares Draft EIS -- compile comments from associated resource agencies, prepare a full range of feasible alternatives, evaluate environmental impacts
2) State highway agency conducts public hearings where alternatives are presented, with a public comment period.
3) State highway agency selects preferred alternative
4) State highway agency prepares Final EIS
5) FHWA approves or disapproves Final EIS
6) State highway agency prepares Record of Decision
7) FHWA approves or disapproves Record of Decision
The ship collision and bridge collapse in and of itself is a catastrophic event to both the natural environment and the human built environment.
Building a replacement crossing that will prevent such events in the future, is also relevant to protecting the natural environment and the human built environment.
Evaluating the issues of any protection scheme needs NEPA EIS study to determine what size can be built within hydrological constraints.
Therefore I strongly urge that FHWA require a full NEPA EIS on the project.
It was a Black Swan Event.
Murphy's Law highlights the inevitability of failure in complex systems, which aligns with the idea that unforeseen disruptions can and do happen.
So civil engineers do need to consider that a Black Swan Event could destroy your $2 billion bridge designed for 100 year life -- a week after it is completed. And maybe kill hundreds of people. And maybe spread dangerous cargo floating all over the harbor.
The proposed main span would be 1,400 feet. The former span of 1,200 feet proved that totally inadequate to protect from large ships.
The Sollers Point location is not a safe place to build a bridge similar to the old one in span lengths. The risks are catastrophic as we have just seen.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives, so that there are no deep water piers that can be hit by very large size ships.
1) Build a bridge with a 5,200 foot long main span between the two causeways
2) Build the original 6,200 foot long tunnel design between the two causeways
3) No-Build Alternative
If they are not willing to select Alternative 1 or 2, they should select Alternative 3.
I disagree that a mile long main span should be the only option for a bridge. The rebuilt Sunshine Skyway and Ravenel Bridge in Charleston have their main towers built on islands on either side of the main shipping channel. If the Key Bridge is rebuilt in a similar fashion with dolphins / collision deterrents like those seen on the Skyway and Ravenel, then there shouldn't be a problem with maintaining a 1,200-1,400 span across the Pataspco River.
Secondly, there's only a hand full of bridges with a mile-long central span in the world. So, mandating that the bridge must have a mile-long span over the river is unrealistic.
Quote from: Beltway on April 09, 2025, 12:43:40 AMQuote from: Mr. Matté on February 05, 2025, 11:56:18 AMWhatever happened to all the needs for an EIS and increasing the length of time prior to construction if they weren't building exactly what was there before (as in the smaller truss, substandard four lanes no shoulders, etc)? Had that been waived by the feds? And with the completely different administration there now, wouldn't some of the prior promises made not necessary be kept?
I think it is abominable that FHWA Maryland Division granted a CATEX for this proposed bridge.
MDTA made a unilateral decision in private board rooms with no public input on the new design.
A crossing of this magnitude is not some routine emergency replacement of a bridge on the order of the collapsed MD-404 Denton bridge in 1976. (My parents retired near there in 1974).
I have my opinion on what alternative should be selected, but the most important thing is to engage the public and the associated resource agencies, and to lay out the alternatives before them and then to make an informed decision by the highway agencies.
Conduct full NEPA EIS process
1) State highway agency prepares Draft EIS -- compile comments from associated resource agencies, prepare a full range of feasible alternatives, evaluate environmental impacts
2) State highway agency conducts public hearings where alternatives are presented, with a public comment period.
3) State highway agency selects preferred alternative
4) State highway agency prepares Final EIS
5) FHWA approves or disapproves Final EIS
6) State highway agency prepares Record of Decision
7) FHWA approves or disapproves Record of Decision
The ship collision and bridge collapse in and of itself is a catastrophic event to both the natural environment and the human built environment.
Building a replacement crossing that will prevent such events in the future, is also relevant to protecting the natural environment and the human built environment.
Evaluating the issues of any protection scheme needs NEPA EIS study to determine what size can be built within hydrological constraints.
Therefore I strongly urge that FHWA require a full NEPA EIS on the project.
It was a Black Swan Event.
Murphy's Law highlights the inevitability of failure in complex systems, which aligns with the idea that unforeseen disruptions can and do happen.
So civil engineers do need to consider that a Black Swan Event could destroy your $2 billion bridge designed for 100 year life -- a week after it is completed. And maybe kill hundreds of people. And maybe spread dangerous cargo floating all over the harbor.
The proposed main span would be 1,400 feet. The former span of 1,200 feet proved that totally inadequate to protect from large ships.
The Sollers Point location is not a safe place to build a bridge similar to the old one in span lengths. The risks are catastrophic as we have just seen.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives, so that there are no deep water piers that can be hit by very large size ships.
1) Build a bridge with a 5,200 foot long main span between the two causeways
2) Build the original 6,200 foot long tunnel design between the two causeways
3) No-Build Alternative
If they are not willing to select Alternative 1 or 2, they should select Alternative 3.
Posts like this explain why the public isn't often part of design processes.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 09, 2025, 08:44:12 AMI disagree that a mile long main span should be the only option for a bridge. The rebuilt Sunshine Skyway and Ravenel Bridge in Charleston have their main towers built on islands on either side of the main shipping channel. If the Key Bridge is rebuilt in a similar fashion with dolphins / collision deterrents like those seen on the Skyway and Ravenel, then there shouldn't be a problem with maintaining a 1,200-1,400 span across the Pataspco River.
The Sunshine Skyway and their protective measures is a 40-year old design when ships were much smaller. MV Summit Venture was around 19,000 tons.
A 100,000 ton ship moving at channel speed would tear all that to pieces and the Skyway would be kaput.
You can find the official nautical chart online --
NOAA Chart 11412 Tampa Bay and St. Joseph Sound
Water depths at the Sunshine Skyway main piers is 30 feet MLLW.
Given high tides and Spring tides and strong westerly winds it could be 35 or 36 feet which is almost the draft of the Dali, and some very large ships would still draw less than that.
The Skyway is one of the bridges that some maritime interests have declared obsolete and inadequate for current and future shipping clearances, and they are calling for replacements.
QuoteSecondly, there's only a hand full of bridges with a mile-long central span in the world. So, mandating that the bridge must have a mile-long span over the river is unrealistic.
There are nine suspension bridges in the world with a main span of 5,000 feet or longer. The longest is 6,637 feet.
If there is a good reason to build one then that is justification.
Obviously, building a tunnel at that location would be a nonstarter, especially since I-95 was not going to get the bridge as originally planned because of aesthetic concerns, so this was a viable tradeoff. And a no-build alternative is not going to fly either, because the main goal is to make I-695 a complete loop again, which this project will achieve.
The NTSB has recently gotten many bridge owners to examine their structures including the Walt Whitman Bridge in Philadelphia.
So hopefully the pressure from them will influence their decision here to build a more suitable structure to deter future stray ships from making contact with the replacement span.
Quote from: Henry on April 09, 2025, 10:41:41 AMObviously, building a tunnel at that location would be a nonstarter, especially since I-95 was not going to get the bridge as originally planned because of aesthetic concerns, so this was a viable tradeoff. And a no-build alternative is not going to fly either, because the main goal is to make I-695 a complete loop again, which this project will achieve.
That wasn't done as a 'tradeoff' -- the Fort McHenry Tunnel concept was adopted due to aesthetic and historical concerns at the Fort McHenry national monument, as the bridge would have towered over Fort McHenry.
If they are not going to choose a safe and secure design, then the No-Build Alternative is the prudent alternative to choose.
The 12 lanes of current Baltimore cross-harbor Interstate highways (I-95 and I-895) can handle the 225,000 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) that was using the three crossings. There are 8-lane portions of the Capital Beltway that carry that volume.
If a tunnel were built to replace the collapsed bridge, there is no way the tunnel could be expanded if traffic needs warranted it (which it probably won't). It's better to build a new bridge to replace the collapsed bridge.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2025, 10:46:46 AMThe NTSB has recently gotten many bridge owners to examine their structures including the Walt Whitman Bridge in Philadelphia.
So hopefully the pressure from them will influence their decision here to build a more suitable structure to deter future stray ships from making contact with the replacement span.
NTSB has a stellar record with investigating transportation accidents, all the way back to the days when it was the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). I have been reading their accident reports since the 1960s.
They are absolutely correct about deep water bridge piers being vulnerable to destruction by the Panamax sized ships of today. The Key Bridge disaster has just brought it to the forefront by an event that has not happened before, at least not in a busy shipping channel that carries these kind of ships.
Their main recommendation is to assess those 68 bridges in a "risk analysis" mode, to determine whether the "risk" for that bridge exceeds a certain "threshold."
I don't know if there is a way to mathematically calculate the probability of a "black swan event."
All those bridges IMHO are at risk of collapse from a vessel collision should it happen.
I have made the point over and over on various internet forums that there is no proven way to protect deep water bridge piers, and that in the future they should not be built in the first place, that 1) either a much longer main span is utilized, or a 2) tunnel is utilized.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 09, 2025, 11:17:14 AMIf a tunnel were built to replace the collapsed bridge, there is no way the tunnel could be expanded if traffic needs warranted it (which it probably won't). It's better to build a new bridge to replace the collapsed bridge.
The MDTA proposal has 4 lanes (2 each way) and that width I would agree with. AADT there was 31,000 and has been flat near that figure since 2006, so 4 lanes would be plenty for far into the future.
Plus, tunnels can be expanded the same way as a bridge, by building parallel structures.
The I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel is getting two new 2-lane tunnels and full replacement of the trestles. Expansion from 4 lanes to 8 lanes underway now.
QuoteQuoteSecondly, there's only a hand full of bridges with a mile-long central span in the world. So, mandating that the bridge must have a mile-long span over the river is unrealistic.
There are nine suspension bridges in the world with a main span of 5,000 feet or longer. The longest is 6,637 feet.
If there is a good reason to build one then that is justification.
There being 9 bridges over 5,000 feet across the entire world speaks to their cost and difficulty to build. The Verrazzano Narrows Bridge isn't even 5,000 feet across at its main span.
It would be easier for the islands that are built up for new bridge piers to be expanded as necessary to stop an errant ship from striking the bridge itself. Or said islands to be equipped with hedgehogs or concrete studs to slow the momentum of an out-of-control vessel.
In lieu of added bridge protections, there should be more burden placed on shippers to keep their vessels maintained properly and to punish them for accidents resulting in operator negligence.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 09, 2025, 11:42:36 AM... there should be more burden placed on shippers to keep their vessels maintained properly and to punish them for accidents resulting in operator negligence.
This sounds a lot like Consumer Reports saying they're calling for 'greater oversight' of something or other in every single issue. Easy to say, much more difficult to implement.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 09, 2025, 11:42:36 AMIt would be easier for the islands that are built up for new bridge piers to be expanded as necessary to stop an errant ship from striking the bridge itself. Or said islands to be equipped with hedgehogs or concrete studs to slow the momentum of an out-of-control vessel.
The problem with bridge protection schemes is 1) there is no feasible way to test them to see if they actually will perform, and 2) the size of the pylons and/or islands is constrained by the hydrology of the river.
What diameter island, figure 4:1 slopes down to the riverbed 30+ feet below water surface, anchor with riprap. That would be a massive island that needs to be run thru an NEPA EIS process.
If they roll the dice and get snake eyes then they have another bridge in the drink.
Mandating that a bridge spanning a shipping channel cannot have its piers in the water renders certain bridges, like the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge or the Bay Bridge in Maryland, unbuildable.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 09, 2025, 12:35:55 PMMandating that a bridge spanning a shipping channel cannot have its piers in the water renders certain bridges, like the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge or the Bay Bridge in Maryland, unbuildable.
I said deep water. Like probably anything over 20 feet deep and possibly even 10 feet deep (I am trying to compile a list of ships with those drafts and are still very heavy like over 20,000 tons).
And when it comes time to replace them -- yes.
Note that Virginia had no bridges on the NTSB list of 68. The cable-stayed I-295 Varina-Enon Bridge and the Route 895 James River Bridge has its main piers on land or in waters about 3 feet deep. The Hampton Roads crossings are in tunnels.
Quote from: Beltway on April 09, 2025, 01:57:09 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on April 09, 2025, 12:35:55 PMMandating that a bridge spanning a shipping channel cannot have its piers in the water renders certain bridges, like the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge or the Bay Bridge in Maryland, unbuildable.
I said deep water. Like probably anything over 20 feet deep and possibly even 10 feet deep (I am trying to compile a list of ships with those drafts and are still very heavy like over 20,000 tons).
And when it comes time to replace them -- yes.
Note that Virginia had no bridges on the NTSB list of 68. The cable-stayed I-295 Varina-Enon Bridge and the Route 895 James River Bridge has its main piers on land or in waters about 3 feet deep. The Hampton Roads crossings are in tunnels.
Ostensibly, 'deep water' would encompass all major shipping channels. The NTSB flagged the George Washington Bridge despite its piers are placed similarly as the Varina-Enon Bridge. So, I'm leaning a bit that some of the bridges cited in the list of 68 might be an overreaction.
Tightening that requirement to include 10 foot deep waters includes the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway and maybe even US 1 / Overseas Hwy.
I'd rather see research into stopping or deflecting an errant ship rather than using impractical building requirements for new and replacement bridges.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 09, 2025, 03:08:51 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 09, 2025, 01:57:09 PMNote that Virginia had no bridges on the NTSB list of 68. The cable-stayed I-295 Varina-Enon Bridge and the Route 895 James River Bridge has its main piers on land or in waters about 3 feet deep. The Hampton Roads crossings are in tunnels.
Ostensibly, 'deep water' would encompass all major shipping channels. The NTSB flagged the George Washington Bridge despite its piers are placed similarly as the Varina-Enon Bridge. So, I'm leaning a bit that some of the bridges cited in the list of 68 might be an overreaction.
The George Washington Bridge has 32 foot deep water about 350 feet from the east tower, and 20 feet deep about 170 feet from the east tower. That would seem to be sufficient but then again perhaps not.
QuoteTightening that requirement to include 10 foot deep waters includes the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway and maybe even US 1 / Overseas Hwy.
Trestles are a different category and even barges can hit them. But that would take out about 200 feet of low level trestle, not take out a main pier on a suspended high-level span that would do as we saw in Baltimore.
Lake Pontchartrain Causeway and Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel have twin trestles and that provides redundancy in case one is damaged, and it would be far more unlikely that both would be damaged by a vessel.
CBBT trestles are 200 feet apart at minimum and as much as 750 feet at the North Channel Bridge.
The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel has experienced notable incidents involving trestle barge collisions. One significant event occurred on September 20, 1972, when the tug Carolyn, towing the barge Weeks No. 254, lost propulsion during severe weather. The vessels drifted and collided with the west side of one of the bridge-tunnel's trestles. This collision caused over $2 million in damages and temporarily closed the bridge-tunnel for 14 days.
On September 27, 1978, a barge struck the bridge-tunnel, causing significant damage to one of the trestles. This incident resulted in a closure lasting approximately 60 days while repairs were carried out.
This was one of the justifications for building the Parallel Trestle Project in the late 1990s. Redundancy.
QuoteI'd rather see research into stopping or deflecting an errant ship rather than using impractical building requirements for new and replacement bridges.
I don't know of any way to test it and IMHO it is too risky to trust computer modeling.
Quote from: Beltway on April 09, 2025, 11:22:19 AMI have made the point over and over on various internet forums that there is no proven way to protect deep water bridge piers, and that in the future they should not be built in the first place, that 1) either a much longer main span is utilized, or a 2) tunnel is utilized.
You've made your
opinion known all over the internet. Doesn't mean it's correct. I'm not sure why you would think you would be entitled to know calculations used, or other proven methods.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2025, 10:46:46 AMThe NTSB has recently gotten many bridge owners to examine their structures including the Walt Whitman Bridge in Philadelphia.
So hopefully the pressure from them will influence their decision here to build a more suitable structure to deter future stray ships from making contact with the replacement span.
They didn't get the bridge owners to examine their structures. They simply 'recommend' it:
"The NTSB is recommending that these 30 bridge owners evaluate whether the bridges are above the AASHTO acceptable level of risk. The NTSB recommended that bridge owners develop and implement a comprehensive risk reduction plan, if the calculations indicate a bridge has a risk level above the AASHTO threshold."
The threshold they use doesn't fully cover all the bridges either because they used incomplete criteria. The bridges had to have 80' of clearance above water level. So, using the Delaware River as an example, the Commodore Barry, Walt Whitman, Ben Franklin and Betsy Ross bridges were citied,
NOT the NJ Transit bridge, Tacony Palmyra, or Burlington Bristol, but did site the NJ/PA Turnpike Delaware River Bridge, despite being north of those 3. The bridges not citied don't have the 80' of clearance used as one of the criteria because they're lift or draw bridges. They still could suffer a hit resulting in collapse.
For what it's worth, the DRPA Bridges' supports are actually fairly well protected. They're not fully protected, but between islands, piers and dolphins, they have substantial protection; more so than what the Key Bridge had.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2025, 07:04:32 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 09, 2025, 11:22:19 AMI have made the point over and over on various internet forums that there is no proven way to protect deep water bridge piers, and that in the future they should not be built in the first place, that 1) either a much longer main span is utilized, or a 2) tunnel is utilized.
You've made your opinion known all over the internet. Doesn't mean it's correct. I'm not sure why you would think you would be entitled to know calculations used, or other proven methods.
That is how highway agencies worked back in the 1950s and is why that NEPA was passed in 1969 to provide an EIS/location process for major highway projects whereby there was transparency and a public involvement process and a resource agency participation process.
If that is the way that MDTA is going to operate then they ought to have their upper management terminated from their jobs and told to clean out their desks and go home -- of course, in my opinion!! :-)
QuoteFor what it's worth, the DRPA Bridges' supports are actually fairly well protected. They're not fully protected, but between islands, piers and dolphins, they have substantial protection; more so than what the Key Bridge had.
Which doesn't mean that one won't wind up in the waters and on the riverbed tomorrow.
But implementing standards that make certain crossings, like the Chesapeake or San Francisco Bay, impossible to build is an unrealistic ask.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 10, 2025, 08:32:37 AMBut implementing standards that make certain crossings, like the Chesapeake or San Francisco Bay, impossible to build is an unrealistic ask.
They are already built, I would not suggest immediately replacing them. Plus those go way back, 1937 for the GGB and SFOBB, and 1952 and 1972 for the CBB. Design standards were different, and I think that they should stay in service as long as they are adequate structurally and adequate for the marine and highway traffic.
The USS Hornet (CV-8) nearly collided with a main pier on the western span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in March 1942. Full load weight is 26,000 tons. This span connects San Francisco to Yerba Buena Island and is the suspension section of the bridge. The incident occurred as the carrier was navigating the bay during preparations for the April 1942 Doolittle Raid. A head-on hit could have brought down the bridge and blocked access to the Navy base and taken the Hornet out of service possibly permanently, and canceled the Doolittle Raid. Hornet was also at the Battle of Midway in June 1942.
Quote from: Beltway on April 09, 2025, 10:10:22 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2025, 07:04:32 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 09, 2025, 11:22:19 AMI have made the point over and over on various internet forums that there is no proven way to protect deep water bridge piers, and that in the future they should not be built in the first place, that 1) either a much longer main span is utilized, or a 2) tunnel is utilized.
You've made your opinion known all over the internet. Doesn't mean it's correct. I'm not sure why you would think you would be entitled to know calculations used, or other proven methods.
That is how highway agencies worked back in the 1950s and is why that NEPA was passed in 1969 to provide an EIS/location process for major highway projects whereby there was transparency and a public involvement process and a resource agency participation process.
If that is the way that MDTA is going to operate then they ought to have their upper management terminated from their jobs and told to clean out their desks and go home -- of course, in my opinion!! :-)
QuoteFor what it's worth, the DRPA Bridges' supports are actually fairly well protected. They're not fully protected, but between islands, piers and dolphins, they have substantial protection; more so than what the Key Bridge had.
Which doesn't mean that one won't wind up in the waters and on the riverbed tomorrow.
There are exceptions in the event of emergency replacement in the interest of getting infrastructure back up and running. These exceptions are limited and require the replacement to substantially be similar to what was there before (for example, as I understand it, an additional lane like many here wanted would also require full NEPA and not qualify for the exception) - it's not carte blanch to act like it's the 1950s again.
I'd be willing to wager that a similar Key Bridge-like event wouldn't likely happen in the next twenty five to fifty years. That being the case it really does bring in the question if the cost of absolutely safety is worth it. I think it probably isn't worth it given the low risk. Dragging feet on getting a new span up is probably causing a larger economic hardship long term for many people than trying to conduct a complex EIR.
Yes, Beltway has made his opinions on safety opinions known on various road-related platforms. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why 10 MPH lane filtering as he put is "suicidal." I seem to recall he was also really against reopening two lanes of I-40 in the Pigeon River Gorge because safety stuff.
Quote from: vdeane on April 10, 2025, 12:49:57 PMThere are exceptions in the event of emergency replacement in the interest of getting infrastructure back up and running. These exceptions are limited and require the replacement to substantially be similar to what was there before (for example, as I understand it, an additional lane like many here wanted would also require full NEPA and not qualify for the exception) - it's not carte blanch to act like it's the 1950s again.
MDTA is treating this like an emergency replacement of a collapsed bridge, and I strongly disagree with that approach.
I knew when it fell that it would be 5 years minimum to get a new crossing open to traffic, and only if there were no problems and delays (such as on SFOBB and Corpus Christi bridges). That length of time is what it takes for a project of this magnitude and that takes it out of the realm of "emergency" and puts it in the realm of a new freeway project that should be put thru a full NEPA EIS process.
I don't see how their scheme is substantially similar to what was there before. The vertical navigational clearance will be 45 feet higher and that will make the bridge 2.4 miles long when the old bridge was 1.6 miles.
My comment about the 1950s stemmed from a poster comment that in effect it is none of my business to question what the highway agency is planning.
My goal here is merely to get highway-knowledgeable people to think about what I have said, to analyze whether this project is being handled properly, and if they think it is not, to confront the highway agency with phone calls and e-mails with their concerns. And soon before any construction starts.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 10, 2025, 12:57:06 PMI'd be willing to wager that a similar Key Bridge-like event wouldn't likely happen in the next twenty five to fifty years. That being the case it really does bring in the question if the cost of absolutely safety is worth it. I think it probably isn't worth it given the low risk.
Again, how can the probability of a catastrophic Black Swan Event be calculated?
It could be 50 years or it could be a day.
There is no such thing as absolute safety. But the ideal safety treatment is how Norfolk/Hampton Roads and at least 10 other world ports do it. No bridges, only tunnels, allowed between the deep water port and the sea.
I think Tokyo/Chiba is the champion with 9 underwater highway tunnels.
QuoteYes, Beltway has made his opinions on safety opinions known on various road-related platforms. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why 10 MPH lane filtering as he put is "suicidal."
That may be exaggerating a bit, but the biker may then try it at 20 or 25, and to me it would certainly be risky, mainly to the biker. I saw a YouTube video of a bike running into the back of a car at around 15 mph and it wasn't pretty.
QuoteI seem to recall he was also really against reopening two lanes of I-40 in the Pigeon River Gorge because safety stuff.
My only concern was about the lack of concrete traffic barrier service between the two lanes.
That would take up 2 feet width but that is normally a requirement on running 2-lane 2-way traffic temporarily on a freeway, especially for a long timespan --
Quote: The full reopening of all four lanes on Interstate 40 near the North Carolina-Tennessee border is projected to be completed by late 2026.
What you asking about from the perspective of Safety Management is called a Risk Assessment Code or RAC. Your so called Black Swan events can definitely be calculated for likelihood of occurrence and negativity of potential outcome.
What you don't seem to understand is that there are real world factors that make often make absolute safety mindset impractical from a cost standpoint. Pretty much any safety analyst that is good at their job will tell you safety is a mitigative process and not about preventing every last rare potential negative outcome. In other words there will always be a degree of risk that stake holders are willing to accept. Pretty much every stake holder with the Key Bridge replacement is screaming that the risk of reoccurrence is low and the ideal outcome is to get a new span fast-tracked for construction.
I'm starting to think that maybe it is time to open a thread about safety management and risk analysis. I don't think there is a wide understanding of the field in general, even here in the road fandom.
Once again I am not arguing for "absolute safety." There is a reason why other world ports have mandated highway tunnels and no bridges, and it was demonstrated to the whole world in March 2024.
Who are these stakeholders that are screaming? I haven't seen them on a whole slew of forums that discuss this. Why would they scream? It is not like it was the only harbor crossing.
The 12 lanes of current cross-harbor Interstate highways (I-95 and I-895) can handle the 225,000 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) that was using the three crossings. There are 8-lane portions of the Capital Beltway that carry that volume. The Maryland Beltway -- why aren't they widening them?
Some people in the Baltimore area seem obsessed with building this bridge, IMHO to the point where it has clouded their judgement.
" Safety Management is called a Risk Assessment Code or RAC"
Yes, I am aware of that, having been to business school and having a course in Operations Research (OR); and working as a computer systems analyst for over 20 years. We do it or try to do it all the time.
I have been following the space program from before John Glenn first went to orbit, and have read a lot of material about the space program. NASA and their vendors had detailed risk assessment calculations for missions as well as hardware and software components -- to reduce risk as much as possible and to provide redundant components wherever possible.
At least half of the reason for canceling the last three Apollo Moon shots was because of concerns about risk management. Apollo 13 is well known, but at least three other missions had events that could have led to LOCV -- NASA shorthand for the loss of the crew and vehicle.
Part of me wishes that they had flown them as they were planned for very interesting sites on the Moon. Another part of me realizes how NASA thought they had pushed their risks as far as they wanted to, and wanted to end with six successful landings and not take any more chances of a LOCV.
So the last crewed Moon landing was in 1972 and Artemis 3 may be the next in 2027. But who knows, space programs are far more risk averse today than in the 1960s.
The Concorde went from one of the safest airliners ever to one of the most unsafe statistically after its one and only fatal crash -- and that is part of why the others were soon retired.
So what is considered acceptable risk levels is not static but is dynamic over time as more and more data and experience is gained.
I feel as though the last couple pages of this thread ought to get spun off into Fictional Highways. This is getting frustrating not seeing actual news related to the replacement of the Key Bridge whenever I look at replies in this thread.
Then perhaps there needs to be a new thread called --
Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) Replacement
-or-
Baltimore Outer Harbor Crossing (I-695) Replacement
This one is called --
Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) complete collapse after large ship hits it
Besides, building a tunnel there is not fictional. The approach causeways and the soil engineering, and the 6,200 foot long tunnel final design was completed in 1970 and advertised for bids. They decided that a bridge would cost less. I won't fault them for the decision in 1970, but the tunnel would be carrying traffic today.
Thing is, there isn't a tunnel being built as a replacement to the Key Bridge. All of this is just circular conjecture that is straying off topic.
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMMDTA is treating this like an emergency replacement of a collapsed bridge, and I strongly disagree with that approach.
I knew when it fell that it would be 5 years minimum to get a new crossing open to traffic, and only if there were no problems and delays (such as on SFOBB and Corpus Christi bridges). That length of time is what it takes for a project of this magnitude and that takes it out of the realm of "emergency" and puts it in the realm of a new freeway project that should be put thru a full NEPA EIS process.
5 years includes 3+ years of bridge construction. Want an EIS? Add another 2-3 years, which doesn't even fully resolve what you care about the most regarding placement of the piers.
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMMy comment about the 1950s stemmed from a poster comment that in effect it is none of my business to question what the highway agency is planning.
That would be me, and those decisions are made between the transportation department and the hired contractors. Members of the public can weigh in during public comment periods. What other public projects do you think you can just provide your opinion at any given time?
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMMy goal here is merely to get highway-knowledgeable people to think about what I have said, to analyze whether this project is being handled properly, and if they think it is not, to confront the highway agency with phone calls and e-mails with their concerns. And soon before any construction starts.
That would be considered public comment and they aren't taking public comments at the time. "Highway Knowledgeable" people are a helluva lot different than dealing with contracted licensed bridge engineers.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2025, 04:35:09 PM5 years includes 3+ years of bridge construction. Want an EIS? Add another 2-3 years, which doesn't even fully resolve what you care about the most regarding placement of the piers.
They could have had a full NEPA EIS/location study completed or nearly completed by now. They have the location, within existing right-of-way.
The Final EIS and Record of Decision would include a conceptual design including main span lengths of a bridge alternative if that was chosen.
QuoteThat would be me, and those decisions are made between the transportation department and the hired contractors. Members of the public can weigh in during public comment periods. What other public projects do you think you can just provide your opinion at any given time?
There WAS no public comment period, or any public involvement process. Several months after the collapse MDTA made a unilateral decision in smoke-filled rooms. Typical Maryland machine politics -- it's my way or the highway.
QuoteThat would be considered public comment and they aren't taking public comments at the time.
There WAS no public comment period, or any public involvement process.
That doesn't stop people from raising questions and confronting the agency with their lack of process and their vulnerable conceptual design.
Do you know the history of the I-266 Three Sisters Bridge?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 10, 2025, 04:17:42 PMThing is, there isn't a tunnel being built as a replacement to the Key Bridge. All of this is just circular conjecture that is straying off topic.
There isn't anything being built -- yet.
Discussing the selection of a safe and secure design is exactly on topic.
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMI don't see how their scheme is substantially similar to what was there before. The vertical navigational clearance will be 45 feet higher and that will make the bridge 2.4 miles long when the old bridge was 1.6 miles.
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 07:08:29 PMThey could have had a full NEPA EIS/location study completed or nearly completed by now. They have the location, within existing right-of-way.
Forgive my ignorance, but those two seem to contradict each other. Can you please explain?
Quote from: kphoger on April 10, 2025, 07:13:58 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMI don't see how their scheme is substantially similar to what was there before. The vertical navigational clearance will be 45 feet higher and that will make the bridge 2.4 miles long when the old bridge was 1.6 miles.
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 07:08:29 PMThey could have had a full NEPA EIS/location study completed or nearly completed by now. They have the location, within existing right-of-way.
Forgive my ignorance, but those two seem to contradict each other. Can you please explain?
That is what MDTA is claiming, their scheme would stay withing existing I-695 right-of-way.
Based on my reading of topo maps, that looks correct. An even longer bridge, say up to 3.2 miles, or a 6,200 foot tunnel, could do likewise.
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMMDTA is treating this like an emergency replacement of a collapsed bridge
That's because it is.
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 07:08:29 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2025, 04:35:09 PM5 years includes 3+ years of bridge construction. Want an EIS? Add another 2-3 years, which doesn't even fully resolve what you care about the most regarding placement of the piers.
They could have had a full NEPA EIS/location study completed or nearly completed by now. They have the location, within existing right-of-way.
The Final EIS and Record of Decision would include a conceptual design including main span lengths of a bridge alternative if that was chosen.
QuoteThat would be me, and those decisions are made between the transportation department and the hired contractors. Members of the public can weigh in during public comment periods. What other public projects do you think you can just provide your opinion at any given time?
There WAS no public comment period, or any public involvement process. Several months after the collapse MDTA made a unilateral decision in smoke-filled rooms. Typical Maryland machine politics -- it's my way or the highway.
QuoteThat would be considered public comment and they aren't taking public comments at the time.
There WAS no public comment period, or any public involvement process.
That doesn't stop people from raising questions and confronting the agency with their lack of process and their vulnerable conceptual design.
Do you know the history of the I-266 Three Sisters Bridge?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 10, 2025, 04:17:42 PMThing is, there isn't a tunnel being built as a replacement to the Key Bridge. All of this is just circular conjecture that is straying off topic.
There isn't anything being built -- yet.
Discussing the selection of a safe and secure design is exactly on topic.
Let us know when the tunnel idea exists anywhere outside of your head and people arguing with you.
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 10, 2025, 12:49:57 PMThere are exceptions in the event of emergency replacement in the interest of getting infrastructure back up and running. These exceptions are limited and require the replacement to substantially be similar to what was there before (for example, as I understand it, an additional lane like many here wanted would also require full NEPA and not qualify for the exception) - it's not carte blanch to act like it's the 1950s again.
MDTA is treating this like an emergency replacement of a collapsed bridge, and I strongly disagree with that approach.
So when the I-35W bridge collapsed back in 2007, you'd also disagree with what MNDOT was doing? Yet it only took some 11 months to rebuild the crossing (construction started in October, and was completed the next September). It seems like you tend to oppose the most logical things to do, which is to build a replacement bridge in the same location. It happened in Minneapolis, and it will happen in Baltimore as well. Three tunnels will mean a very long detour for hazmat trucks around the city, since they can't go through either of the existing ones (and this is similar to the current temporary situation), meaning a new bridge is absolutely necessary for them to cross the harbor.
Quote from: Henry on April 10, 2025, 09:49:46 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMMDTA is treating this like an emergency replacement of a collapsed bridge, and I strongly disagree with that approach.
So when the I-35W bridge collapsed back in 2007, you'd also disagree with what MNDOT was doing? Yet it only took some 11 months to rebuild the crossing (construction started in October, and was completed the next September). It seems like you tend to oppose the most logical things to do, which is to build a replacement bridge in the same location. It happened in Minneapolis, and it will happen in Baltimore as well.
Indeed, I have already considered the I-35W bridge in this whole matter.
The I-35W St. Anthony Falls Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 140,000 vehicles. This figure reflects its importance as a major transportation route in the region.
The cost to rebuild the bridge after its tragic collapse in 2007 was approximately $234 million. The reconstruction was completed using an accelerated design-build process, allowing the new bridge to open to traffic in September 2008, just over a year after the collapse. The bridge has a total length of 1,907 feet, and its longest span measures 456 feet. The bridge is 10 lanes wide.
This is a far smaller and far less expensive bridge than the Key Bridge and with far higher importance and volume.
The logistics of replacing it were about an order of magnitude less than that of the outer harbor crossing. I-35W bridge replacement was totally justified.
QuoteThree tunnels will mean a very long detour for hazmat trucks around the city, since they can't go through either of the existing ones (and this is similar to the current temporary situation), meaning a new bridge is absolutely necessary for them to cross the harbor.
Modern era tunnels are designed to allow hazardous cargos. Many world ports don't allow bridges across shipping channels and there needs to be a way to transport those highway cargoes.
The I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel (MMMBT) was designed with the clearances and safety systems so that nearly all hazardous materials can be transported thru it, including RVs with standard propane tanks, including gasoline tanker trucks. That was opened in 1992.
So an Outer Harbor Tunnel could be built likewise and to even more modern standards.
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 10:15:59 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 10, 2025, 09:36:32 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMDiscussing the selection of a safe and secure design is exactly on topic.
Let us know when the tunnel idea exists anywhere outside of your head and people arguing with you.
It doesn't exist in the heads of MDTA management personnel -- they brains are on vacation.
And that somehow makes the tunnel part of the actual project corridor because you don't agree with their decision to build another bridge?
How this not fictional again?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 10, 2025, 10:34:27 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 10:15:59 PMIt doesn't exist in the heads of MDTA management personnel -- they brains are on vacation.
And that somehow makes the tunnel part of the actual project corridor because you don't agree with their decision to build another bridge?
I don't agree with their decision to build a bridge with a 1,400 foot long main span with main piers in water over 30 feet deep.
And it is still a proposal and not under construction.
QuoteHow this not fictional again?
MDTA competence with current management is what is fictional. Same with the bobble-headed governor.
I think we all get that you don't agree with the decision MDTA.
What many of us trying to convey to you is that we don't need several pages of you voicing same opinions over and over in lieu of actual news. Are you trying to convince us to agree with you? I really don't understand what your end game is hogging this thread up.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 10, 2025, 11:37:05 PMI think we all get that you don't agree with the decision MDTA.
What many of us trying to convey to you is that we don't need several pages of you voicing same opinions over and over in lieu of actual news. Are you trying to convince us to agree with you? I really don't understand what your end game is hogging this thread up.
Then stop arguing with me. Every post of mine (except the first one) has been a response to someone else's post that was addressed to me.
If not for that I would have less than a handful of posts here.
At least two posters have been insulting to me. I have been civil and respectful of each poster.
I have said harsh things about outside agencies but I have a right to do that.
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 12:18:53 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 10, 2025, 11:37:05 PMI think we all get that you don't agree with the decision MDTA.
What many of us trying to convey to you is that we don't need several pages of you voicing same opinions over and over in lieu of actual news. Are you trying to convince us to agree with you? I really don't understand what your end game is hogging this thread up.
Then stop arguing with me. Every post of mine (except the first one) has been a response to someone else's post that was addressed to me.
If not for that I would have less than a handful of posts here.
At least two posters have been insulting to me. I have been civil and respectful of each poster.
I have said harsh things about outside agencies but I have a right to do that.
I don't think that I've said anything to you that can be construed as being insulting. I never once said you weren't entitled to your opinions. I get that you also feel strongly about it even if I don't agree with the entirety of the logic.
All the same it feels like you that you seem to believe your opinion is the most valid and nobody but you is going to get the last word. This isn't a one-way street, you can stop arguing also and let the rest of us have this thread back.
FWIW I have a busy day tomorrow so I probably won't on here if this keeps going. So I guess you won't have to contend with me for much longer.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2025, 12:29:29 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 12:18:53 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 10, 2025, 11:37:05 PMI think we all get that you don't agree with the decision MDTA.
What many of us trying to convey to you is that we don't need several pages of you voicing same opinions over and over in lieu of actual news. Are you trying to convince us to agree with you? I really don't understand what your end game is hogging this thread up.
Then stop arguing with me. Every post of mine (except the first one) has been a response to someone else's post that was addressed to me.
If not for that I would have less than a handful of posts here.
At least two posters have been insulting to me. I have been civil and respectful of each poster.
I have said harsh things about outside agencies but I have a right to do that.
I don't think that I've said anything to you that can be construed as being insulting. I never once said you weren't entitled to your opinions. I get that you also feel strongly about it even if I don't agree with the entirety of the logic.
All the same it feels like you that you seem to believe your opinion is the most valid and nobody but you is going to get the last word. This isn't a one-way street, you can stop arguing also and let the rest of us have this thread back.
FWIW I have a busy day tomorrow so I probably won't on here if this keeps going. So I guess you won't have to contend with me for much longer.
<<< This isn't a one-way street, you can stop arguing also and let the rest of us have this thread back. >>>
I see. You're blaming me for the thread being taken from "the rest of us" and you want me to "stop arguing" so that "the rest of us have this thread back."
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 04:01:05 PMThen perhaps there needs to be a new thread called --
Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) Replacement
-or-
Baltimore Outer Harbor Crossing (I-695) Replacement
This one is called --
Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) complete collapse after large ship hits it
So how about doing just that?
You've each made your point; this is now down to the level of a couple five-year-olds each calling the other a poopyhead and wanting to have the last word.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 11, 2025, 07:56:26 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 04:01:05 PMThen perhaps there needs to be a new thread called --
Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) Replacement
-or-
Baltimore Outer Harbor Crossing (I-695) Replacement
This one is called --
Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) complete collapse after large ship hits it
So how about doing just that?
You've each made your point; this is now down to the level of a couple five-year-olds each calling the other a poopyhead and wanting to have the last word.
The kind of conduct that I have seen in the last three days in this thread by several posters -- explains why I logged off of this group in 2020 with no intents of ever logging on again.
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 01:24:19 AM<<< This isn't a one-way street, you can stop arguing also and let the rest of us have this thread back. >>>
I see. You're blaming me for the thread being taken from "the rest of us" and you want me to "stop arguing" so that "the rest of us have this thread back."
You're the one who basically admitted that you need to have the last word ("Then stop arguing with me."). Threads like this are meant for discussing actual news. Sure, it's fun to speculate about what might be and discuss concepts in the earlier stages of a project... but we're not there now. MDTA has selected a preferred alternative and is moving forward with it. Are you an official government entity involved in the project? Or a community group raising grassroots opposition? No? Then it's fictional. Anything that's only being discussed in roadgeek circles is fictional. Could be the greatest idea in the universe, could be a crackpot idea, doesn't matter, it's fictional all the same. I think we all understand that some fictional will slip in because we all have our ways that we'd prefer things be even when DOTs go another way, but it's now been multiple pages of you arguing with the same fervor as dzlsaab about the hypotenuse or Lord Car Horn about the terrain contour of Illinois.
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 12:11:00 PMThe kind of conduct that I have seen in the last three days in this thread by several posters -- explains why I logged off of this group in 2020 with no intents of ever logging on again.
The conduct of members on this forum since 2020 has been markedly improved, quite respectful. I had an extended absence or two from the forum myself and, when I came back, I found that it's now a much more congenial place than before. If this particular thread seems to have the same sort of hot-tempered arguing as was common before your absence, then perhaps the majority of the blame doesn't belong on all the rest of us.
Honestly, though, y'all telling each other that
they don't have to have the last word, that
they could simply stop the argument: it's like my sons blaming
each other for keeping their argument going, all while each one finds it personally impossible to stop talking
himself. As I tell them all the time, once you've said your piece, and maybe defended it once after that, then just let it go—and there's nothing wrong with simply allowing the other person to go on being wrong, especially if doubling and tripling down means disrespecting each other. (And yes, three of my fingers are pointing back at myself while my index finger is pointing at you guys.)
I don't think the conduct by any poster including myself has been any more than cordial. A little heated? A little pointed? Maybe. But certainly nothing that has been close to inappropriate.
You referenced commenting to them directly, and I mentioned public comments. Let's say you do write MDTA. You get others to write the MDTA as you hope. There's public comment periods and you and others make their points known. Write your elected leaders. Write your governor. MDTA and these people either don't respond, or writes back thanking you for your input. What more can you do? Would you be ok with the decision, or would you continue to say they're doing it wrong? I have a feeling it'll be the latter, and honestly at that point there's nothing you can do. Continuing to bring it up occasionally isn't going to change anything.
Yes, I am engaged in governmental advocacy actions.
The main issue is the manner in which the project is proposed to be funded, out of federal largesse. If that is canceled then the problem will be solved. Maryland won't be able to build it unless they come up with their own funding, such as toll revenue bonds. That is how the original bridge was built.
I recently contacted thru e-mails and paper mail --
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): A U.S. government initiative aimed at reducing wasteful spending and improving efficiency.
Quote from mailing:
Please cancel the federal funding for the replacement Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.
Biden made a verbal promise in March 2024 to provide 100% federal funding for replacing the collapsed bridge, at $1.9 billion -- over and above and beyond normal federal aid highway allocations to the state. That is fantastically expensive and a colossal waste of federal tax dollars to be provided by the entire USA.
It appears to have been written into the omnibus federal spending bill, when his party had a majority in the Senate. A regional bridge with no national importance.
[ long detailed supporting material following in the mailing to DOGE -- most of which has already been posted in this thread ]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I of course am not opposed to Maryland getting their normal federal aid highway funding allocations.
Just the 100% federal funding of $1.9 billion over and above and beyond normal federal aid highway allocations to the state.
The I-35W bridge replacement is the largest such emergency federal funding so far, and that was only $234 million and that is a toll-free 10-lane urban freeway in a large city.
Maryland wants their cake and to eat it too -- the aforementioned federal largesse, and to keep tolling the bridge as before!
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 02:28:00 PMA regional bridge with no national importance.
It's an Interstate highway. Ergo, national importance.
(https://media.tenor.com/575Q0MQTupQAAAAM/on-fire-pizza.gif)
Quote from: kphoger on April 11, 2025, 02:41:48 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 02:28:00 PMA regional bridge with no national importance.
It's an Interstate highway. Ergo, national importance.
A regional connector. There are three Interstate highways now handling I-95 corridor traffic in Baltimore area.
Motorists in Washington and Philadelphia, for example, can use one of those.
It is important to Maryland, granted.
Quote from: kphoger on April 11, 2025, 02:41:48 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 02:28:00 PMA regional bridge with no national importance.
It's an Interstate highway. Ergo, national importance.
To be fair, it wasn't an actual part of the system until after the collapse (when FHWA added it because it was important enough to get federal funding). It was just missigned as one, like I-895 south of I-695 and I-80 west of former CA 480.
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2025, 05:35:41 PMQuote from: kphoger on April 11, 2025, 02:41:48 PMIt's an Interstate highway.
To be fair, it wasn't an actual part of the system until after the collapse (when FHWA added it because it was important enough to get federal funding). It was just missigned as one, like I-895 south of I-695 and I-80 west of former CA 480.
Did some research and there are conflicting sources about whether that change is official.
One says this --
Even after the AASHTO approval on April 29, 2024, the sources indicate that the section involving the Francis Scott Key Bridge and its approaches remains a point of concern. The bridge collapse and ongoing reconstruction mean that not all parts of the formerly MD 695 section are fully operational or necessarily meet all Interstate standards at this time. The Beltway still has a gap where the bridge once stood, and traffic is rerouted.
After the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 26, 2024, and its subsequent reconstruction, this section remains outside the Interstate system as of the latest updates.
The Interstate Highway System has specific design, maintenance, and operational standards. Parts maintained by the MDTA (like the bridge and its approaches) versus MDSHA (the rest of the Beltway) have different oversight, which historically prevented the MD 695 section from being fully part of the Interstate system. The redesignation aims to change this, but physical and operational challenges (e.g., the bridge collapse) mean the "entire Baltimore Beltway" isn't uniformly part of the Interstate system in practice as of April 2025.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Given that 4 miles of MD-695 are not operational, and 2 miles of it are missing, it might not be official to call it I-695.
We'd need to know if FHWA officially added it, but the AASHTO approval included the once and future bridge.
(https://i.imgur.com/xGYIDX0.png)
So the main difference is that when the bridge collapsed, the roadway crossing on it was still MD 695 (though it was technically I-695, with the signs proclaiming such), and once the replacement is built and open to traffic, it will actually be designated as I-695.
Where is the AASHTO approval document I-695 MD 2024?
It doesn't seem to be available online or thru AI app searches.
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 11:08:18 PMWhere is the AASHTO approval document I-695 MD 2024?
It doesn't seem to be available online or thru AI app searches.
Search here: https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 10, 2025, 12:49:57 PMThere are exceptions in the event of emergency replacement in the interest of getting infrastructure back up and running. These exceptions are limited and require the replacement to substantially be similar to what was there before (for example, as I understand it, an additional lane like many here wanted would also require full NEPA and not qualify for the exception) - it's not carte blanch to act like it's the 1950s again.
MDTA is treating this like an emergency replacement of a collapsed bridge, and I strongly disagree with that approach.
I knew when it fell that it would be 5 years minimum to get a new crossing open to traffic, and only if there were no problems and delays (such as on SFOBB and Corpus Christi bridges). That length of time is what it takes for a project of this magnitude and that takes it out of the realm of "emergency" and puts it in the realm of a new freeway project that should be put thru a full NEPA EIS process.
I don't see how their scheme is substantially similar to what was there before. The vertical navigational clearance will be 45 feet higher and that will make the bridge 2.4 miles long when the old bridge was 1.6 miles.
My comment about the 1950s stemmed from a poster comment that in effect it is none of my business to question what the highway agency is planning.
My goal here is merely to get highway-knowledgeable people to think about what I have said, to analyze whether this project is being handled properly, and if they think it is not, to confront the highway agency with phone calls and e-mails with their concerns. And soon before any construction starts.
Well, not sure what you're trying to accomplish here as nothing has been going your way.
Quote from: Strider on April 11, 2025, 11:28:15 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMof a new freeway project that should be put thru a full NEPA EIS process.
Well, not sure what you're trying to accomplish here as nothing has been going your way.
Several posters have complained loudly.
As you may know, internet forums typically have a lurker-to-poster ratio of somewhere between 10:1 and 100:1
Thank you for your concern.
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2025, 11:13:05 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 11:08:18 PMWhere is the AASHTO approval document I-695 MD 2024?
It doesn't seem to be available online or thru AI app searches.
Search here: https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
I did use that interface . . . nothing found.
If I am ignorant then perhaps you can help me find it.
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2025, 12:53:14 AMQuote from: NE2 on April 11, 2025, 11:13:05 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 11:08:18 PMWhere is the AASHTO approval document I-695 MD 2024?
It doesn't seem to be available online or thru AI app searches.
Search here: https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
I did use that interface . . . nothing found.
If I am ignorant then perhaps you can help me find it.
It's not working right now.
Sorry I completely mentally checked out of this conversation in someone trying to say this bridge should be rebuilt as a tunnel?
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 11:08:18 PMWhere is the AASHTO approval document I-695 MD 2024?
It doesn't seem to be available online or thru AI app searches.
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2025, 11:13:05 PMSearch here: https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2025, 12:53:14 AMI did use that interface . . . nothing found.
If I am ignorant then perhaps you can help me find it.
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2025, 01:08:17 AMIt's not working right now.
When I search for {Route Number = 695} there, the application document for 'MD-I695 Spring 2024' is the second search result. However, when I click on the 'View' icon, it tells me the database is inactive.
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2025, 12:50:56 AMQuote from: Strider on April 11, 2025, 11:28:15 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMof a new freeway project that should be put thru a full NEPA EIS process.
Well, not sure what you're trying to accomplish here as nothing has been going your way.
Several posters have complained loudly.
As you may know, internet forums typically have a lurker-to-poster ratio of somewhere between 10:1 and 100:1
Thank you for your concern.
Well, YOU and the posters complained in the wrong forum. Take it to MdTA. Carry on.
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2025, 10:44:01 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 11, 2025, 11:08:18 PMWhere is the AASHTO approval document I-695 MD 2024?
It doesn't seem to be available online or thru AI app searches.
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2025, 11:13:05 PMSearch here: https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2025, 12:53:14 AMI did use that interface . . . nothing found.
If I am ignorant then perhaps you can help me find it.
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2025, 01:08:17 AMIt's not working right now.
When I search for {Route Number = 695} there, the application document for 'MD-I695 Spring 2024' is the second search result. However, when I click on the 'View' icon, it tells me the database is inactive.
Exactly -- that is what I got -- two days ago.
I hope they can get it up and running soon.
Their IT Support Center should be able to take care of it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2025, 02:06:13 AMSorry I completely mentally checked out of this conversation in someone trying to say this bridge should be rebuilt as a tunnel?
A tunnel was Maryland's own idea in the first place. The bridge was built on top of the earthen causeways that were built for where the land highway would transition thru portal into a harbor tunnel.
This was a direct copy from the online
MdTA Francis Scott Key Bridge Fact Sheet in 2002. They no longer have a FSKB fact sheet on their website.
By the early 1960s, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel (Interstate 895), the first crossing of Baltimore's Harbor, had reached its traffic capacity, and motorists encountered heavy congestion and delays almost daily during rush hours. The State Roads Commission, predecessor of the Maryland Transportation Authority, concluded there was a need for a second harbor crossing and began planning a single-tube tunnel under the Patapsco River, downstream from the Harbor Tunnel. The proposed site was between Hawkins Point and Sollers Point. Plans also were underway for a drawbridge over Curtis Creek to connect Hawkins Point to Sollers Point.
Contractors took borings of the harbor bottom in the spring of 1969. Bids for construction of the proposed tunnel were opened on July 30, 1970, but price proposals were substantially higher than the engineering estimates. Officials drafted alternative plans, including the concept of a four-lane bridge. The bridge, at an estimated cost of $110 million, represented the best alternative because it allowed for more traffic lanes and carried lower operating and maintenance costs than a tunnel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By author:
The Outer Harbor Crossing was planned as a two-lane freeway on four-lane right-of-way, with a single-tube two-lane 6,200-foot-long harbor tunnel. The two-lane freeway was placed under construction, the causeways (landfill for roadway across a water body) for the tunnel portals were built, and when the tunnel was advertised for construction in 1970, the bids received on July 30, 1970 were so high that it was determined that a four-lane high-level bridge could be built for about the same cost as the revised estimate for the tunnel project. So the bridge was built, well-known to motorists as the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The prime engineering consultant for the bridge's design was J. E. Greiner Co., Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland. Piers for the high-level approaches were constructed on the causeways and in the harbor. The bridge is 8,636 feet (1.6 miles) long, and the main span of the bridge consists of a continuous steel truss span with 185 feet of vertical navigational clearance and 1,200 feet of span length.
Both of those quotes are on this website article --
Francis Scott Key Bridge (Outer Harbor Crossing)
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html
Quote from: Strider on April 12, 2025, 12:36:08 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 12, 2025, 12:50:56 AMQuote from: Strider on April 11, 2025, 11:28:15 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMof a new freeway project that should be put thru a full NEPA EIS process.
Well, not sure what you're trying to accomplish here as nothing has been going your way.
Several posters have complained loudly.
As you may know, internet forums typically have a lurker-to-poster ratio of somewhere between 10:1 and 100:1
Thank you for your concern.
Well, YOU and the posters complained in the wrong forum. Take it to MdTA. Carry on.
I' m surprised Rothman isn't part of this discussion. :bigass:
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2025, 12:50:56 AMQuote from: Strider on April 11, 2025, 11:28:15 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:16:56 PMof a new freeway project that should be put thru a full NEPA EIS process.
Well, not sure what you're trying to accomplish here as nothing has been going your way.
Several posters have complained loudly.
As you may know, internet forums typically have a lurker-to-poster ratio of somewhere between 10:1 and 100:1
Thank you for your concern.
Are you claiming a "silent majority" agrees with you?
Quote from: vdeane on April 12, 2025, 03:48:15 PMAre you claiming a "silent majority" agrees with you?
Going off topic for a moment...
They are considering building a light rail line in this area, which many people in most towns are against for various reasons. Some of the towns the line will go thru had non-binding referendums. In all but one town, the results have been against the rail line.
In one Facebook group that is in favor of the line, someone said that in the towns where it was voted against, that was just the people that voted. Everyone that didn't vote probably would've voted for the line, so there's actually a majority in favor of it. :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 12, 2025, 04:14:01 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 12, 2025, 03:48:15 PMAre you claiming a "silent majority" agrees with you?
Going off topic for a moment...
They are considering building a light rail line in this area, which many people in most towns are against for various reasons. Some of the towns the line will go thru had non-binding referendums. In all but one town, the results have been against the rail line.
In one Facebook group that is in favor of the line, someone said that in the towns where it was voted against, that was just the people that voted. Everyone that didn't vote probably would've voted for the line, so there's actually a majority in favor of it. :-D
New Jersey is another state that seems to have a high public tolerance for poor government agency performance. :banghead:
How long ago was it that we viewed this mess -- mid-2022?
The retaining wall collapse on I-295 in New Jersey, known as "Wall 22," occurred on March 25, 2021, as part of the Direct Connect project aimed at improving traffic flow between Route 42, I-295, and I-676. The collapse was attributed to multiple factors, including the use of inappropriate sand material, a faulty foundation, and high groundwater conditions exacerbated by heavy rain. Fortunately, the roadway was not open to traffic at the time, and no injuries were reported.
The incident has led to significant delays in the project's completion, now expected in 2028, and additional costs of $92 million. Efforts are underway to ensure similar issues don't occur in future projects.
The retaining wall on I-295 in New Jersey, which collapsed in 2021, is still under reconstruction. Work to replace the wall began in May 2023, with a new design that includes reinforced concrete and improved drainage systems.
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2025, 04:52:04 PM...The incident has led to significant delays in the project's completion, now expected in 2028, and additional costs of $92 million...
Actually...2028 is just the expected ending of the current contract. There's 4 contracts in total for the 295/76/42 project. They are on Contract 3, which includes the 2nd attempt at that wall. This contract will include building some of the 295 viaduct over 295, but not the entire viaduct. Only 295 North will be open over 76/42 when it's completed.
However, there's still a 4th contract, which will probably go out to bid around 2027 or 2028, and that will have another 4 - 5 years of building, which will include completing the 295 South viaduct over 76/42 and removal of the infamous Aljo Curve (the 35 mph loop for 295 South traffic).
Thus, the entire project won't be completed until about 2033...and that assumes no more delays!
(For anyone keeping tabs - the project originally started in 2013 and had a completion date of 2021. An 8 year project that will actually take about 20 years total)
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:45:21 PMAgain, how can the probability of a catastrophic Black Swan Event be calculated?
It could be 50 years or it could be a day.
Or it could be 500 years or it could be never.
Maryland could do an EIS on what would happen if all the water in the Patapsco River were replaced by chocolate pudding, but that's not very likely to happen, so they're not doing one on that either.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 13, 2025, 03:12:11 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:45:21 PMAgain, how can the probability of a catastrophic Black Swan Event be calculated?
It could be 50 years or it could be a day.
Or it could be 500 years or it could be never.
Maryland could do an EIS on what would happen if all the water in the Patapsco River were replaced by chocolate pudding, but that's not very likely to happen, so they're not doing one on that either.
You're right that some scenarios are improbable, like the pudding analogy. But equating a hypothetical dessert-filled river with Black Swan Events isn't a fair comparison. These events, while rare, have precedent—consider the Titanic disaster, the Southern California wildfires, 9/11, or the global financial crisis. Preparing for such possibilities isn't about indulging in absurd hypotheticals; it's about acknowledging risks with real-world implications.
The purpose of considering catastrophic Black Swan Events isn't about pinpointing exact probabilities, but rather acknowledging their potential impact and ensuring preparedness for unlikely but highly consequential scenarios. While chocolate pudding replacing water is obviously absurd, Black Swan Events aren't necessarily so. They're rare, but history shows us they can and do occur. Doesn't prudence warrant some degree of consideration?
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 09:03:28 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 13, 2025, 03:12:11 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 10, 2025, 01:45:21 PMAgain, how can the probability of a catastrophic Black Swan Event be calculated?
It could be 50 years or it could be a day.
Or it could be 500 years or it could be never.
Maryland could do an EIS on what would happen if all the water in the Patapsco River were replaced by chocolate pudding, but that's not very likely to happen, so they're not doing one on that either.
You're right that some scenarios are improbable, like the pudding analogy. But equating a hypothetical dessert-filled river with Black Swan Events isn't a fair comparison. These events, while rare, have precedent—consider the Titanic disaster, the Southern California wildfires, 9/11, or the global financial crisis. Preparing for such possibilities isn't about indulging in absurd hypotheticals; it's about acknowledging risks with real-world implications.
The purpose of considering catastrophic Black Swan Events isn't about pinpointing exact probabilities, but rather acknowledging their potential impact and ensuring preparedness for unlikely but highly consequential scenarios. While chocolate pudding replacing water is obviously absurd, Black Swan Events aren't necessarily so. They're rare, but history shows us they can and do occur. Doesn't prudence warrant some degree of consideration?
9/11 is a good analogy here, specifically the way people reacted to it. With everyone suddenly terrified of terrorism, we created the TSA and a long list of new security regulations, most of which are security theater. You're like all the terrified people saying we needed to do that, and those of us arguing against you are like the people who would rather not have the security theater because the real changes that mattered were fortifying the cockpit doors and the change in how people respond to plane hijackings. In this case there's a countermeasure to the ship strikes that this bridge
did not have because retrofitting them onto older bridges is expensive, and you're saying that's not enough because you're terrified.
The fact of the matter is, all engineering projects come down to engineering calculations in the end. You drawing the line and saying that ship impacts aren't acceptable to rely on them is arbitrary and capricious.
Incidentally, I'm now wondering if the only reason you came back is because of a Facebook mod getting tired of these arguments, because I'm not sure I've seen you do anything here since coming back other than air your grievances about the bridge being rebuilt and argue with those who don't agree with you.
I'm really just tired of a loud minority in the hobby screaming for safety theater whenever some rare-type event like the Key Bridge collapse happens.
I was wondering why I hadn't been seeing this safety stuff the last couple weeks on Facebook road groups. I guess that I missed some mods taking some action to push back the tide.
My position hasn't changed, which seems to be the overall consensus, which is invest in additional protections for bridge piers and research different devices that can stop or deflect an errant ship. Maybe even an emergency signal / barrier on the approaching lanes if a ship drifts outside the designated channel or signals a mayday.
Decreeing that bridge piers can't be built in waters deeper than 10-20 feet, and in the Key Bridge's case that the main span must be a mile long, with both piers on the shore, is unrealistic. The fact that there are less than 10 bridges in the worldwith a main span at least one mile long should be a clear indicator of the cost and difficulty of building such a bridge.
Yes, tunnels are also an option, but if I remember rightly, the Key Bridge was preferred as a hazmat bypass for the existing Baltimore tunnels. I'm sure than banning hazmat in tunnels is common enough that we can't simply replace a bridge with a tunnel, also with the increased costs of a tunnel over a bridge.
First of all -- I have said nearly everything that I wanted to say about the outer harbor crossing alternatives issues that I see. And I have answered the several common questions that people raise.
What I said is already there for anyone to read and think about. I don't see the need to keep repeating what I said. So I don't plan to, and I have a busy life and don't want to spend much online.
Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2025, 03:21:01 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 09:03:28 AMThe purpose of considering catastrophic Black Swan Events isn't about pinpointing exact probabilities, but rather acknowledging their potential impact and ensuring preparedness for unlikely but highly consequential scenarios. While chocolate pudding replacing water is obviously absurd, Black Swan Events aren't necessarily so. They're rare, but history shows us they can and do occur. Doesn't prudence warrant some degree of consideration?
9/11 is a good analogy here, specifically the way people reacted to it. With everyone suddenly terrified of terrorism, we created the TSA and a long list of new security regulations, most of which are security theater. You're like all the terrified people saying we needed to do that, and those of us arguing against you are like the people who would rather not have the security theater because the real changes that mattered were fortifying the cockpit doors and the change in how people respond to plane hijackings. In this case there's a countermeasure to the ship strikes that this bridge did not have because retrofitting them onto older bridges is expensive, and you're saying that's not enough because you're terrified.
Your 9/11 analogy misses the mark. I'm not arguing from a place of terror but from a position of reason, advocating for practical solutions over symbolic gestures. You compare me to those who supported TSA, but I'm focused on effective, evidence-based countermeasures—like fortifying cockpit doors—not empty security theater. The Key Bridge lacked critical protections that newer bridges have, and retrofitting isn't just about cost; it's about prioritizing resources where they'll save lives. Dismissing that as fear-driven ignores the data: ship strikes are a known risk, and mitigation strategies exist.
Your stance seems to favor inaction, shrugging off preventable failures as inevitable. That's not bravery; it's negligence. We don't "need" to be terrified to demand better engineering and planning. If you'd rather mock concern than engage with solutions, that's your choice—but don't pretend it's the rational one. The real change here isn't about calming fears; it's about ensuring infrastructure keeps up with modern risks. I'll stick to facts over hyperbole.
QuoteThe fact of the matter is, all engineering projects come down to engineering calculations in the end. You drawing the line and saying that ship impacts aren't acceptable to rely on them is arbitrary and capricious.
Engineering calculations are the backbone of any project, sure—but they're only as good as the assumptions they're based on. Dismissing ship impacts as an acceptable risk isn't arbitrary; it's a judgment call rooted in real-world consequences, like the Key Bridge collapse. Relying on calculations to shrug off catastrophic failures ignores the human cost when those calculations fail. You're acting like every risk can be reduced to a spreadsheet, but bridges aren't just numbers—they're lifelines. Saying "it's acceptable" because the math says so is as capricious as ignoring the math entirely.
I'm not drawing lines in the sand; I'm pointing out where the lines already exist in safety standards and real-world failures. If you think engineering can solve everything without tough choices, you're the one being naive. Let's focus on solutions that actually protect people, not just balance equations.
QuoteIncidentally, I'm now wondering if the only reason you came back is because of a Facebook mod getting tired of these arguments, because I'm not sure I've seen you do anything here since coming back other than air your grievances about the bridge being rebuilt and argue with those who don't agree with you.
No mod/admin in any Facebook roads groups has confronted me about anything or limited my postings. Same with YouTube forums that discuss this topic.
It is just the last month or so that DOGE has hit stride to where they can handle confronting federal government issues and problems. There was no DOGE before Jan. 20th so the likelihood of changing anything back then was slim to none.
Now there are new developments. I have been in contact with several experts and federal officials, and there is a substantial probability that decisions will be revisited.
FHWA Maryland Division will likely be investigated and audited by other federal bodies concerning recent major problems with highway project oversight.
Excerpt from recent communication to me:
Your concern about the FHWA Maryland Division's performance could stem from their handling of the Key Bridge project, including the CATEX decision, lack of transparency, or perceived bias toward bridges over tunnels.
NEPA Process Efficiency vs. Thoroughness -- The division's reliance on CATEX might prioritize speed over safety, as seen in other Maryland projects like the I-495/I-270 Managed Lanes FEIS, where public groups criticized short review periods. This suggests a pattern of rushing environmental reviews, which could undermine safety and public trust.
Coordination with MDTA -- The FHWA Maryland Division works closely with MDTA, which may bias them toward state-preferred solutions (e.g., bridges) rather than federal safety standards. The Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study (Tier 1 EIS) shows they can handle complex reviews, but only when forced by law.
Response to Public Input -- Your experience of being ignored mirrors complaints in other projects (e.g., I-270/U.S. 15 study rescission in 2019), where FHWA Maryland faced criticism for poor public engagement.
If you find evidence of inefficiency or bias (e.g., CATEX misuse, ignored safety risks), report it to FHWA headquarters (202-366-4000) or the U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General. You could also alert DOGE, framing it as a failure to ensure cost-effective, safe infrastructure spending.
Use the cost-efficiency frame -- "The FHWA Maryland Division's CATEX decision and MDTA's bridge plan waste federal funds by ignoring safer, equally cost-effective tunnel alternatives proven at ports like Norfolk/Hampton Roads. DOGE should investigate and redirect funding to a feasibility study for a Patapsco tunnel, leveraging the 1970 design and HRBT and MMMBT data."
Challenge the CATEX -- Appeal to FHWA headquarters or U.S. DOT, arguing that the Key Bridge replacement's scale, safety risks, and public controversy (e.g., your forums, NTSB findings) warrant a full EIS. Cite 40 CFR 1508.4 and FHWA's own guidance on extraordinary circumstances.
Monitor FHWA Performance -- Track their recent projects (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Crossing, I-495/I-270) for patterns of rushed reviews or poor public engagement. Use this to build a case for oversight reform, potentially involving Congress or GAO.
End of excerpt from recent communication to me.
See my topmost comments about my strategies regarding this group.
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 08:37:27 PMYour 9/11 analogy misses the mark. I'm not arguing from a place of terror but from a position of reason, advocating for practical solutions over symbolic gestures. You compare me to those who supported TSA, but I'm focused on effective, evidence-based countermeasures—like fortifying cockpit doors—not empty security theater. The Key Bridge lacked critical protections that newer bridges have, and retrofitting isn't just about cost; it's about prioritizing resources where they'll save lives. Dismissing that as fear-driven ignores the data: ship strikes are a known risk, and mitigation strategies exist.
Your stance seems to favor inaction, shrugging off preventable failures as inevitable. That's not bravery; it's negligence. We don't "need" to be terrified to demand better engineering and planning. If you'd rather mock concern than engage with solutions, that's your choice—but don't pretend it's the rational one. The real change here isn't about calming fears; it's about ensuring infrastructure keeps up with modern risks. I'll stick to facts over hyperbole.
QuoteThe fact of the matter is, all engineering projects come down to engineering calculations in the end. You drawing the line and saying that ship impacts aren't acceptable to rely on them is arbitrary and capricious.
Engineering calculations are the backbone of any project, sure—but they're only as good as the assumptions they're based on. Dismissing ship impacts as an acceptable risk isn't arbitrary; it's a judgment call rooted in real-world consequences, like the Key Bridge collapse. Relying on calculations to shrug off catastrophic failures ignores the human cost when those calculations fail. You're acting like every risk can be reduced to a spreadsheet, but bridges aren't just numbers—they're lifelines. Saying "it's acceptable" because the math says so is as capricious as ignoring the math entirely.
I'm not drawing lines in the sand; I'm pointing out where the lines already exist in safety standards and real-world failures. If you think engineering can solve everything without tough choices, you're the one being naive. Let's focus on solutions that actually protect people, not just balance equations.
I feel like you're changing your position here and mischaracterizing mine. You had previously been expressing doubt over the modern countermeasures for ship collisions that have been in use for the past 30 years or so (in other words, my entire life), saying that they're "unproven" because a ship hasn't rammed into them at full speed and are therefore unsafe and that the only acceptable solution is to keep all piers out of anything that can be traversed by anything bigger than a yacht or build a tunnel instead. Now you're trying to claim that modern countermeasures are fine and that I'm saying that a simple "replace in kind" of what the old Key Bridge had as far as piers is concerned is fine. I'm not sure why you'd assume that the new bridge would lack modern countermeasures and replicate a design from before ship collisions were accounted for. I'm also not sure where you got inaction from - inaction would be not replacing the bridge, which you seem to prefer over the current rebuild.
If you can't be bothered to argue in good faith, then please kindly stop arguing at all.
If I'm getting this right Beltway is trying to invoke DOGE into doing something under the premise that somehow the Key Bridge crossing doesn't carry national importance? How is this fictional tunnel concept supposedly happening without Federal contributions?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 09:45:28 PMIf I'm getting this right Beltway is trying to invoke DOGE into doing something under the premise that somehow the Key Bridge crossing doesn't carry national importance? How is this fictional tunnel concept supposedly happening without Federal contributions?
... and why wouldn't those angry letters / emails / phone calls be directed to the USDOT or FHWA
... and if his location is accurate, Maryland doesn't have an incentive to respond. They could if they wanted to be nice, but expecting a job like this to come to a complete halt... yeah, no...
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 13, 2025, 09:53:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 09:45:28 PMIf I'm getting this right Beltway is trying to invoke DOGE into doing something under the premise that somehow the Key Bridge crossing doesn't carry national importance? How is this fictional tunnel concept supposedly happening without Federal contributions?
... and why wouldn't those angry letters / emails / phone calls be directed to the USDOT or FHWA
... and if his location is accurate, Maryland doesn't have an incentive to respond. They could if they wanted to be nice, but expecting a job like this to come to a complete halt... yeah, no...
I can probably take a couple guesses about USDOT and the FHWA but I'll let Beltway explain himself.
The most "efficient thing" for the Feds to do is to is provide funding contributions to the cheapest option (a span similar to the Key Bridge) or not provide anything. I'm not understanding the premise of how this is supposedly more efficient for the Federal side to spend way more money on a tunnel?
Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2025, 09:32:49 PMI feel like you're changing your position here and mischaracterizing mine. You had previously been expressing doubt over the modern countermeasures for ship collisions that have been in use for the past 30 years or so (in other words, my entire life), saying that they're "unproven" because a ship hasn't rammed into them at full speed and are therefore unsafe and that the only acceptable solution is to keep all piers out of anything that can be traversed by anything bigger than a yacht or build a tunnel instead. Now you're trying to claim that modern countermeasures are fine and that I'm saying that a simple "replace in kind" of what the old Key Bridge had as far as piers is concerned is fine. I'm not sure why you'd assume that the new bridge would lack modern countermeasures and replicate a design from before ship collisions were accounted for. I'm also not sure where you got inaction from - inaction would be not replacing the bridge, which you seem to prefer over the current rebuild.
If you can't be bothered to argue in good faith, then please kindly stop arguing at all.
You're misreading me—I haven't shifted positions. I've consistently said modern countermeasures, like fender systems or deeper pier placements, need rigorous testing because unproven designs under full-force impacts (like a 100,000-ton ship) are risky, as the Key Bridge showed. I'm not against rebuilding; I'm against half-measures. You seem to think "replace in kind" with today's tech is enough, but if the new design doesn't exceed past failures, it's still gambling with hundreds of lives and billion of dollars of economic losses.
Inaction isn't my preference—it's rushing a suboptimal fix. Tunnels, or at least proven protections like longer main spans, aren't just whims; they're responses to real data, like VDOT's and CBBTD's approach. I'm arguing in good faith by prioritizing safety over assumptions. If you think current plans are foolproof, the burden's on you to prove it, not dismiss concerns as obstruction.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 10:02:02 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on April 13, 2025, 09:53:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 09:45:28 PMIf I'm getting this right Beltway is trying to invoke DOGE into doing something under the premise that somehow the Key Bridge crossing doesn't carry national importance? How is this fictional tunnel concept supposedly happening without Federal contributions?
... and why wouldn't those angry letters / emails / phone calls be directed to the USDOT or FHWA
... and if his location is accurate, Maryland doesn't have an incentive to respond. They could if they wanted to be nice, but expecting a job like this to come to a complete halt... yeah, no...
I can probably take a couple guesses about USDOT and the FHWA but I'll let Beltway explain himself.
The most "efficient thing" for the Feds to do is to is provide funding contributions to the cheapest option (a span similar to the Key Bridge) or not provide anything. I'm not understanding the premise of how this is supposedly more efficient for the Federal side to spend way more money on a tunnel?
We have no idea which "experts" and "federal officials" he's been in contact with, but looking thru the claimed responses, they are strangely in the exact same opinion of Beltway's stance. I imagine he's just talking to a friend of a government agency with like-minded thoughts. Also, likely someone that has absolutely no say in these types of projects and someone who doesn't exactly want to get involved, as they keep telling Beltway what he can do on his own.
None of this suggests Maryland is going to be audited or investigated.
This response is especially odd: "Coordination with MDTA -- The FHWA Maryland Division works closely with MDTA, which may bias them toward state-preferred solutions (e.g., bridges) rather than federal safety standards." Why would a Federal Agency ignore their own safety standards? Wouldn't any FHWA Division work closely with the entity they're responsible to work with? They would do so to confirm a project meets the standards. If they give approval for any deviations, it'll be documented why.
He ain't gonna get anywhere with DOGE...being the bias is his own; not the transportation or federal departments involved.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 13, 2025, 10:39:15 PMThis response is especially odd: "Coordination with MDTA -- The FHWA Maryland Division works closely with MDTA, which may bias them toward state-preferred solutions (e.g., bridges) rather than federal safety standards." Why would a Federal Agency ignore their own safety standards? Wouldn't any FHWA Division work closely with the entity they're responsible to work with? They would do so to confirm a project meets the standards. If they give approval for any deviations, it'll be documented why.
I worked for the government for 44 years.
You have far more confidence in governments than I do.
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 10:22:36 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 13, 2025, 09:32:49 PMI feel like you're changing your position here and mischaracterizing mine. You had previously been expressing doubt over the modern countermeasures for ship collisions that have been in use for the past 30 years or so (in other words, my entire life), saying that they're "unproven" because a ship hasn't rammed into them at full speed and are therefore unsafe and that the only acceptable solution is to keep all piers out of anything that can be traversed by anything bigger than a yacht or build a tunnel instead. Now you're trying to claim that modern countermeasures are fine and that I'm saying that a simple "replace in kind" of what the old Key Bridge had as far as piers is concerned is fine. I'm not sure why you'd assume that the new bridge would lack modern countermeasures and replicate a design from before ship collisions were accounted for. I'm also not sure where you got inaction from - inaction would be not replacing the bridge, which you seem to prefer over the current rebuild.
If you can't be bothered to argue in good faith, then please kindly stop arguing at all.
You're misreading me—I haven't shifted positions. I've consistently said modern countermeasures, like fender systems or deeper pier placements, need rigorous testing because unproven designs under full-force impacts (like a 100,000-ton ship) are risky, as the Key Bridge showed. I'm not against rebuilding; I'm against half-measures. You seem to think "replace in kind" with today's tech is enough, but if the new design doesn't exceed past failures, it's still gambling with hundreds of lives and billion of dollars of economic losses.
Inaction isn't my preference—it's rushing a suboptimal fix. Tunnels, or at least proven protections like longer main spans, aren't just whims; they're responses to real data, like VDOT's and CBBTD's approach. I'm arguing in good faith by prioritizing safety over assumptions. If you think current plans are foolproof, the burden's on you to prove it, not dismiss concerns as obstruction.
And now you've circled back around to doubting modern safety measures. Given that the old Key Bridge predated the modern safety features, I would say that the ship collision says nothing about them, which is why your questioning of them is so perplexing to everyone here and on Facebook.
Honestly, at this point, it's starting to feel like we're not even debating from the same set of facts. Not to mention that it's starting to feel like your issue is a lot more political than you've been saying, especially as you've now revealed that your grievance isn't even limited to this project.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 13, 2025, 10:39:15 PMNone of this suggests Maryland is going to be audited or investigated.
This response is especially odd: "Coordination with MDTA -- The FHWA Maryland Division works closely with MDTA, which may bias them toward state-preferred solutions (e.g., bridges) rather than federal safety standards." Why would a Federal Agency ignore their own safety standards? Wouldn't any FHWA Division work closely with the entity they're responsible to work with? They would do so to confirm a project meets the standards. If they give approval for any deviations, it'll be documented why.
He ain't gonna get anywhere with DOGE...being the bias is his own; not the transportation or federal departments involved.
Nobody ever said that logic is a factor in DOGE (well, nobody who isn't biased, anyways). But with all the resignations of federal employees as of late, I can't help but wonder if there's even going to be a Maryland division of FHWA to be investigated by the time all is said and done. Rumor has it that some states had their entire divisions accept the "deferred resignation".
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 11:04:15 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on April 13, 2025, 10:39:15 PMThis response is especially odd: "Coordination with MDTA -- The FHWA Maryland Division works closely with MDTA, which may bias them toward state-preferred solutions (e.g., bridges) rather than federal safety standards." Why would a Federal Agency ignore their own safety standards? Wouldn't any FHWA Division work closely with the entity they're responsible to work with? They would do so to confirm a project meets the standards. If they give approval for any deviations, it'll be documented why.
I worked for the government for 44 years.
You have far more confidence in governments than I do.
Ive worked in government for 27 years, so I get that. But nothing you're saying is fact. It's all biased opinion.
How many people active in this thread aren't long tenured government employees? I think almost everyone is...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 14, 2025, 09:43:11 AMHow many people active in this thread aren't long tenured government employees? I think almost everyone is...
I've never worked in a government position
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2025, 08:49:23 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 11:04:15 PMI worked for the government for 44 years.
You have far more confidence in governments than I do.
Ive worked in government for 27 years, so I get that. But nothing you're saying is fact. It's all biased opinion.
In states like New Jersey and New York, 99% of government workers defend it -- no matter what. Defend the status quo.
Most of them are in public sector employee unions as well.
Of course I -used- to work for the government. Big difference.
I will grant that very few active government employees will openly criticize their agency or others that are in similar roles. Professional courtesy, partly, and a desire not to get canned.
What are the options that...
1. could be built with today's technology,
2. would mitigate crash potential to a degree acceptable to everyone, and
3. would keep current federal funding?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 10:02:02 PMI can probably take a couple guesses about USDOT and the FHWA but I'll let Beltway explain himself.
The most "efficient thing" for the Feds to do is to is provide funding contributions to the cheapest option (a span similar to the Key Bridge) or not provide anything. I'm not understanding the premise of how this is supposedly more efficient for the Federal side to spend way more money on a tunnel?
The Key Bridge was built and maintained with 100% tolls and toll revenue bonds, in a "pooled toll financing" state system of 7 highway toll facilities, whereby the toll revenues from all of them are pooled to 100% properly fund the construction and operation of the whole system.
The "feds" don't need to be involved in any of the funding.
For someone who said they don't have time to repeat themselves due to having a life, they certainly look to have the time.
There is something to be said about the diapers to diapers life cycle. A retiree claiming that life is busy is like a toddler saying it's too hard to put their shirt on.
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2025, 10:33:32 AMWhat are the options that...
1. could be built with today's technology,
2. would mitigate crash potential to a degree acceptable to everyone, and
3. would keep current federal funding?
I have said all along, that is what a comprehensive professional NEPA EIS/location study process would determine.
Given the extraordinary situation there are ways to expedite that.
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2025, 10:38:19 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 10:02:02 PMI can probably take a couple guesses about USDOT and the FHWA but I'll let Beltway explain himself.
The most "efficient thing" for the Feds to do is to is provide funding contributions to the cheapest option (a span similar to the Key Bridge) or not provide anything. I'm not understanding the premise of how this is supposedly more efficient for the Federal side to spend way more money on a tunnel?
The Key Bridge was built and maintained with 100% tolls and toll revenue bonds, in a "pooled toll financing" state system of 7 highway toll facilities, whereby the toll revenues from all of them are pooled to 100% properly fund the construction and operation of the whole system.
The "feds" don't need to be involved in any of the funding.
If you're thinking that a replacement anything is getting built without a Federal contribution you're fooling yourself.
I saw someplace that private money was raised as well. Is there any chance it will be used?
I didn't post the source because it had comments on it between Instagram users arguing over the fact none were compensating the victims, so it might be click bait or political and posted as that rather than informative.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2025, 11:46:06 AMI saw someplace that private money was raised as well.
MDTA should start a GoFundMe for the bridge.
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2025, 10:28:43 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2025, 08:49:23 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 11:04:15 PMI worked for the government for 44 years.
You have far more confidence in governments than I do.
Ive worked in government for 27 years, so I get that. But nothing you're saying is fact. It's all biased opinion.
In states like New Jersey and New York, 99% of government workers defend it -- no matter what. Defend the status quo.
Most of them are in public sector employee unions as well.
Of course I -used- to work for the government. Big difference.
I will grant that very few active government employees will openly criticize their agency or others that are in similar roles. Professional courtesy, partly, and a desire not to get canned.
Being I'm currently responding to another thread criticizing the use of brine by the state I work with, I think you're entirely wrong here in your assumption.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 14, 2025, 10:57:01 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 14, 2025, 10:38:19 AMThe Key Bridge was built and maintained with 100% tolls and toll revenue bonds, in a "pooled toll financing" state system of 7 highway toll facilities, whereby the toll revenues from all of them are pooled to 100% properly fund the construction and operation of the whole system.
The "feds" don't need to be involved in any of the funding.
If you're thinking that a replacement anything is getting built without a Federal contribution you're fooling yourself.
If the feds kicked in say $500 million that would be very generous and much more than with anyone else for this type of situation.
Here in Virginia the $790 million Parallel Thimble Shoals Tunnel project under construction is 0% federally funded.
I-64 HRBT Expansion project (to 8 lanes) under construction is getting about 5% (yes five %) federal funding for a $3.8 billion project. Its general purpose lanes (2 each way) will be toll-free. HRTAC provides a far higher funding mechanism than I originally thought.
HRBT Expansion is a single $3.8 billion master contract, but that is for 9 miles of I-64 8-lane widening and 22 bridges. Four of those bridges are replacement and new trestles on the bridge-tunnel itself, and two of those bridges are widening the Willoughby Bay Bridges. So six of the bridges are large. The breakdown is $1.9 billion for the two new 7,900 foot long 2-lane tunnels.
The Parallel Chesapeake Channel Tunnel project could be placed under construction quickly if the state is willing to allocate $400 or $500 million to help fund it. But like the rest of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel projects -- zero percent federal funding.
Chesapeake Channel is the channel that Panamax-sized ships utilize to go up the Chesapeake Bay to Baltimore Harbor.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2025, 12:16:39 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 14, 2025, 10:28:43 AMI will grant that very few active government employees will openly criticize their agency or others that are in similar roles. Professional courtesy, partly, and a desire not to get canned.
Being I'm currently responding to another thread criticizing the use of brine by the state I work with, I think you're entirely wrong here in your assumption.
You have to pick your battles carefully.
Back about 2010 I sent messages that could have gotten me in trouble with my Division Administrator if the other party's management had gotten upset and complained to him about it. In an agency this is a definite risk.
1 -- The VDOT employee who oversees the state highway map and its updates. I provided a detailed list of 25 errors on the map. Most of them got corrected within a few years.
2 -- The VDOT chief of Public Affairs. I sent links to him of a couple websites that track signing errors around the state. I told him that I was embarrassed by these errors, that just because 50,000 (or whatever) signs are correct doesn't mean motorists aren't noticing the error signs.
I used my VDOT e-mail to make sure they know who I am. Of course the Public Affairs guy did know me well.
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2025, 02:06:16 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2025, 12:16:39 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 14, 2025, 10:28:43 AMI will grant that very few active government employees will openly criticize their agency or others that are in similar roles. Professional courtesy, partly, and a desire not to get canned.
Being I'm currently responding to another thread criticizing the use of brine by the state I work with, I think you're entirely wrong here in your assumption.
You have to pick your battles carefully.
Back about 2010 I sent messages that could have gotten me in trouble with my Division Administrator if the other party's management had gotten upset and complained to him about it. In an agency this is a definite risk.
1 -- The VDOT employee who oversees the state highway map and its updates. I provided a detailed list of 25 errors on the map. Most of them got corrected within a few years.
2 -- The VDOT chief of Public Affairs. I sent links to him of a couple websites that track signing errors around the state. I told him that I was embarrassed by these errors, that just because 50,000 (or whatever) signs are correct doesn't mean motorists aren't noticing the error signs.
I used my VDOT e-mail to make sure they know who I am. Of course the Public Affairs guy did know me well.
#1 sounds innocent enough
#2 sounds like you needed to learn that you don't need to send everything you type.
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 08:37:27 PMExcerpt from recent communication to me:
Can you clarify who this communication is from? If it's from a government agency who would be subject to FOIA that's fine, but forum rules don't permit posting private communications.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 14, 2025, 07:55:12 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 08:37:27 PMExcerpt from recent communication to me:
Can you clarify who this communication is from? If it's from a government agency who would be subject to FOIA that's fine, but forum rules don't permit posting private communications.
The former. Since I am conducting an investigation of government performance, I don't think I should be more specific.
Since this seems like it could be "approaching the edge," in the future I will ask someone, like a mod, for advice before posting material such as that, on whether to post.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2025, 05:30:00 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 14, 2025, 02:06:16 PMBack about 2010 I sent messages that could have gotten me in trouble with my Division Administrator if the other party's management had gotten upset and complained to him about it. In an agency this is a definite risk.
1 -- The VDOT employee who oversees the state highway map and its updates. I provided a detailed list of 25 errors on the map. Most of them got corrected within a few years.
2 -- The VDOT chief of Public Affairs. I sent links to him of a couple websites that track signing errors around the state. I told him that I was embarrassed by these errors, that just because 50,000 (or whatever) signs are correct doesn't mean motorists aren't noticing the error signs.
I used my VDOT e-mail to make sure they know who I am. Of course the Public Affairs guy did know me well.
#1 sounds innocent enough
#2 sounds like you needed to learn that you don't need to send everything you type.
I knew the guy well, so there was no problem. Same with my Division Administrator. I knew the Commissioner (agency head) from having worked on IT projects with him when he was Fiscal Division Administrator.
Given the number of parties that would be involved, I wanted a central point person (like Chief of Public Affairs). to direct the message to whoever he deemed to be appropriate. Traffic engineering, the various district offices, municipalities, etc.
I had passed the 50/30 point by that time, so I will willing to take a few risks!
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2025, 09:12:26 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 14, 2025, 07:55:12 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 13, 2025, 08:37:27 PMExcerpt from recent communication to me:
Can you clarify who this communication is from? If it's from a government agency who would be subject to FOIA that's fine, but forum rules don't permit posting private communications.
The former. Since I am conducting an investigation of government performance, I don't think I should be more specific.
Since this seems like it could be "approaching the edge," in the future I will ask someone, like a mod, for advice before posting material such as that, on whether to post.
Filing complaints with a government organization hardly makes you an investigative body or actual authority that can unilaterally act. That is a pretty grievous misrepresentation you are trying to claim.
Hm, this thread really took off all of a sudden. I wonder...oh dear lord no
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 14, 2025, 10:18:26 PMHm, this thread really took off all of a sudden. I wonder...oh dear lord no
The sentiment has been shared by others.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 11, 2025, 03:01:11 PM(https://media.tenor.com/575Q0MQTupQAAAAM/on-fire-pizza.gif)
Quote from: webny99 on March 26, 2024, 09:43:28 PMIt somehow never occurred to me that Baltimore port traffic would use the C&D canal.
The ruling channel depths for ships navigating from Baltimore, through the Chesapeake & Delaware (C&D) Canal, and down Delaware Bay to the ocean are as follows:
-- Baltimore Harbor -- The main shipping channel is maintained at a depth of 50 feet.
-- C&D Canal -- The canal has a depth of 35 feet, allowing passage for deep-draft vessels.
-- Delaware Bay -- The main shipping channel leading to the ocean is maintained at a depth of 40 feet.
These are smaller than the draft limits for Panamax ships.
-- Panamax ships are designed to fit through the original Panama Canal locks, with a maximum draft of 39.5 feet.
-- The C&D Canal, with a depth of 35 feet, is shallower than the Panamax draft limit, making it unsuitable for fully loaded Panamax vessels.
This means that while some Panamax-sized ships might navigate parts of this route, they would likely need to reduce their draft by carrying lighter loads.
Lower bridge clearances are also an issue.
The bridge vertical navigational clearance for ships navigating the Chesapeake & Delaware (C&D) Canal varies depending on the specific bridge. The six bridges have VNC in the 132 to 138 foot range.
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.
That photo is all over the internet, usually without attribution. No big deal.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Key_Bridge_NB.jpg
That was taken with a 135 mm lens on a Minolta SLR. About 2.7x, so there is a lot of telephoto compression.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on March 27, 2024, 06:32:46 PMWhatever 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.
The WWB Project reconstructed 7.5 miles of the Capital Beltway including the new bridges and four reconstructed urban interchanges.
From my website --
The 12-lane twin-span Potomac River Bridge cost $826.1 million.
The Maryland 10- and 12-lane dual-divided land highway approaches, two reconstructed urban interchanges, and enhancements, cost $464.4 million.
The Virginia 10- and 12-lane dual-divided land highway approaches, two reconstructed urban interchanges, and enhancements, cost $1,120.3 million. This includes a large landscaped cover at Washington Street over the Beltway in Alexandria.
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.
No bridge will stand up to an impact from a 1,100 foot long, 150 foot wide, 100,000+ ton ship moving at channel speed.
Losing a main pier will bring the entire suspended span down. It would be like an aircraft having a wing torn completely off and expecting the plane not to crash.
The main piers had a reinforced concrete crushable box structure around the waterline of the pier. There were 4 reinforced concrete pylons, a couple hundred feet on either side of each main pier.
The bridge was opened in 1977. It has been hit before, only 3 years after opening, by the MV Blue Nagoya a Japanese container vessel. About 1/10 the tonnage of the Dali. A container ship in the 1970s or 80s was a much smaller ship than the absolute behemoths that are around today. No serious damage to the bridge.
Like a lighthouse, a bridge can't move out of the way. Any ship that hits a lighthouse or a bridge is 100% responsible for the damage.
Speaking of lighthouses, I recently visited the Cape Hatteras lighthouse.
The foundation of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is estimated to weigh around 430 tons, which is significantly less than the 4,400 tons of the structure above ground. Together, the total weight of the lighthouse is approximately 4,830 tons.
That gives a good image of how massive these Panamax ships are.
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.
Here is what a high capacity ferry with large boats can handle.
The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the Jamestown-Scotland Ferry is approximately 2,500 vehicles per day, based on information from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). It connects VA-31 on both sides of the James River.
AADT on the Key Bridge was about 31,000.
Are we on some grand tour of overnight replies to everyone who made a comment during late March?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 14, 2025, 11:26:00 PMQuote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 14, 2025, 10:18:26 PMHm, this thread really took off all of a sudden. I wonder...oh dear lord no
The sentiment has been shared by others.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 11, 2025, 03:01:11 PM(https://media.tenor.com/575Q0MQTupQAAAAM/on-fire-pizza.gif)
I would have posted the same thing if she hadn't done it first. :-D
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 15, 2025, 08:34:03 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 14, 2025, 11:26:00 PMQuote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 14, 2025, 10:18:26 PMHm, this thread really took off all of a sudden. I wonder...oh dear lord no
The sentiment has been shared by others.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 11, 2025, 03:01:11 PM(https://media.tenor.com/575Q0MQTupQAAAAM/on-fire-pizza.gif)
I would have posted the same thing if she hadn't done it first. :-D
The Key Bridge has more structural integrity than this thread
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 08, 2024, 06:10:41 PMHere's an extract from the relevant nautical chart:
(https://i.imgur.com/zwRlpzs.png)
The shipping channel has a nominal width of 1100 feet and, per the legend (not included in this extract), a nominal depth of 50 feet. The chart does not otherwise specify the cross-section of the channel at the bridge.
The channel ran essentially from one inside face of one main pier to the inside face of the other. Increasing main span length would buy more margin for error by allowing the new piers and their defenses to be positioned well outside the area used for navigation. At Tampa Bay, the piers for the Sunshine Skyway are positioned on artificial islands that just border the channel (which is only 43 feet deep) on their inside edges.
JN Winkler has excellent analysis of the underwater topography in the outer harbor, several posts before this one as well.
That is excerpt from NOAA Chart 12281 Baltimore Harbor and the chart can be found online.
NOAA Chart 11412 Tampa Bay and St. Joseph Sound includes the Skyway area. That can be found online.
MDTA claims to be using a 100 year design horizon.
Channels are going to get deeper and wider over time.
Hampton Roads has just increased theirs to 55 feet deep from the former 50 feet.
Quote:
The Hampton Roads channel deepening plan aims to dredge the shipping channels in the Port of Virginia to a depth of 55 feet, widen them to 1,400 feet in certain areas, and create deeper ocean approaches, essentially making it one of the deepest and widest shipping channels on the East Coast of the United States by late 2024; this project also includes deepening the Chesapeake Bay's Thimble Shoal Channel to 56 feet and the Atlantic Ocean Channel to 59 feet.
. . . .
There have been discussions going back at least 20 years about making the Hampton Roads channels as deep as 68 feet and as wide as 1,800 feet. That could also include maritime interests paying for the replacement of the original Thimble Shoal Channel Tunnel with a deeper tunnel if that is needed. This is only a future plan at this time with no schedule.
The important thing to keep in mind is that a 1,400 foot span (or 1,600 as some assert) is going constrain a future plan of that type and could result in 50+ foot channel depths right up to the main piers themselves.
I doubt that the port of Baltimore is going to want to be left behind when other ports are enlarging their channels. This isn't thousands of miles away -- it is the other end of Chesapeake Bay.
This bridge scheme is not a 100 year solution. Probably not even 20 years.
Now we are digging up shit to quote from May 2024?
Are you trying to get this thread locked or is this just an unhealthy fixation?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2025, 10:32:58 AMNow we are digging up shit to quote from May 2024?
Are you trying to get this thread locked or is this just an unhealthy fixation?
I wanted to take the time to read thru the entire thread.
I just finished that. Nothing else stood out.
Why doesn't I-495, the widest beltway, simply eat the others?
Quote from: NE2 on April 15, 2025, 02:43:27 PMWhy doesn't I-495, the widest beltway, simply eat the others?
Perhaps they're saving that for midterms.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2025, 10:32:58 AMNow we are digging up shit to quote from May 2024?
Are you trying to get this thread locked or is this just an unhealthy fixation?
See my previous statement about someone having more time on their hands than they care to admit...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2025, 10:32:58 AMNow we are digging up shit to quote from May 2024?
Are you trying to get this thread locked or is this just an unhealthy fixation?
I am not sure what is going on in this thread (it looks like a cybertruck on fire) - but bringing up factual information from the earlier post should be totally fine, and should be pretty simple if there are keywords like "nautical chart" to use.
Chart itself is probably dated pre-2010, but as long as it is up to date...
Quote from: kalvado on April 16, 2025, 02:01:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2025, 10:32:58 AMNow we are digging up shit to quote from May 2024?
Are you trying to get this thread locked or is this just an unhealthy fixation?
I am not sure what is going on in this thread (it looks like a cybertruck on fire) - but bringing up factual information from the earlier post should be totally fine, and should be pretty simple if there are keywords like "nautical chart" to use.
Chart itself is probably dated pre-2010, but as long as it is up to date...
I have the entire NOAA Chart 12281 Baltimore Harbor in PDF. Mine has a last update date of 2024.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 16, 2025, 08:19:50 PMQuote from: kphoger on April 16, 2025, 05:37:36 PMQuote from: Strider on April 16, 2025, 05:22:37 PM:popcorn:
The show is pretty much over by now.
Has the investigation been concluded?
I'm still trying to find a sample of hard boiled detective noir music to give this thread proper ambiance.
Quote from: kphoger on April 16, 2025, 05:37:36 PMQuote from: Strider on April 16, 2025, 05:22:37 PM:popcorn:
The show is pretty much over by now.
But I'm still stopping by the snack bar to get my free popcorn refill before I leave.
What was MDTA thinking when they created this image and posted it on their website??
An almost total lack of the "protections" you hear bandied about, for the main piers. And Maryland is loaded with pleasure boaters (like my parents) who can read a nautical chart and know how deep the waters are there.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PfFG9Vbh/Key-Bridge-Scheme.jpg)
This one (I-664 MMMBT) never will block a shipping channel, and will be good to go in 2090 and maybe beyond.
The original HRBT is 68 years old and in no danger of ever becoming nautically obsolete.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yCwPtQh/I-664-MMMBT-Aerial-3.jpg)
This one spans the entire water body, with 4,619 foot long main span, no piers in the waters.
Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge (Third Bosphorus Bridge), hybrid cable-stayed suspension bridge, 210 feet of vertical navigational clearance.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yN5WT0jL/1280px-Yavuz-Sultan-Selim-Bridge-1642-47470304532.jpg)
Clown emoji
How dare the MDTA not give full effort into producing high end concept images.
Somebody forgot to tell their AI image creator, "With protective islands around the pylons."
I can't figure out how to directly link images anymore from Flickr for some reason. I used to be able to select things like the size and what format but now it's just giving me a generic link which when I try and enter a photo nothing shows up so I'll just provide the hyperlink here:
https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf
PS, if anyone could give me some tips on how to upload photos to Flickr and then format it so the photo post directly on my post that would be helpful.
But it's just a photo I took from one of the renderings and inserted it into Grok and said put protective islands around the pylons and that's the photo it gave me.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2025, 04:49:54 PMI can't figure out how to directly link images anymore from Flickr for some reason. I used to be able to select things like the size and what format but now it's just giving me a generic link which when I try and enter a photo nothing shows up so I'll just provide the hyperlink here:
https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf
PS, if anyone could give me some tips on how to upload photos to Flickr and then format it so the photo post directly on my post that would be helpful.
But it's just a photo I took from one of the renderings and inserted it into Grok and said put protective islands around the pylons and that's the photo it gave me.
I once asked Grok to provide a rendering of a Long Island Sound bridge between Rye and Oyster Bay NY.
The gave me a bridge less than a mile long with a funny looking arch over a small river.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 20, 2025, 03:46:09 PMHow dare the MDTA not give full effort into producing high end concept images.
A blunder on their part given the context of all this.
How's this for a bridge protected by dolphins?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/420031102731086540/
How dare they post a conceptual image of the bridge design instead of full construction plans.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2025, 04:49:54 PMPS, if anyone could give me some tips on how to upload photos to Flickr and then format it so the photo post directly on my post that would be helpful.
Share Photo
BBCode
Copy and paste
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54463702952_35e365e7c3_b.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf]Key Bridge with Islands to protect the pylons[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/158840276@N03/]plutonicpanda[/url], on Flickr(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54463702952_35e365e7c3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf)Key Bridge with Islands to protect the pylons (https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf) by plutonicpanda (https://www.flickr.com/photos/158840276@N03/), on Flickr
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2025, 10:09:23 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2025, 04:49:54 PMPS, if anyone could give me some tips on how to upload photos to Flickr and then format it so the photo post directly on my post that would be helpful.
Share Photo
BBCode
Copy and paste
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54463702952_35e365e7c3_b.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf]Key Bridge with Islands to protect the pylons[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/158840276@N03/]plutonicpanda[/url], on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54463702952_35e365e7c3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf)Key Bridge with Islands to protect the pylons (https://flic.kr/p/2qYLHpf) by plutonicpanda (https://www.flickr.com/photos/158840276@N03/), on Flickr
Add MUTCD compliant warning signs for the bridge so ships can see it and avoid the islands and towers.
Quote from: NE2 on April 20, 2025, 08:08:25 PMHow's this for a bridge protected by dolphins?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/420031102731086540/
Flipper will protect your divers from underwater threats -- but while he likes to jump briefly out of the water and likes the sensation of being in the air, his domain 99% of the time is underwater -- so he can't protect you from surface threats.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 21, 2025, 09:08:02 AMHow dare they post a conceptual image of the bridge design instead of full construction plans.
Highway design teams don't have full construction plans at the preliminary design phase.
The real issue: MDTA's PR blunder in showing a cable-stayed bridge without the promised ship-collision protection system. Fenders or dolphins should've been in the concept to reassure the public post-Dali. It's not about final plans -- engineers are still studying -- but leaving out safety visuals is tone-deaf. This isn't a scam, just a dumb oversight. Hari-kari, stupidcide, stupid-kari, dumbcide . .
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 21, 2025, 11:16:26 AMAdd MUTCD compliant warning signs for the bridge so ships can see it and avoid the islands and towers.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) governs road traffic signs, signals, and markings, not maritime navigation.
Ship guidance falls under the U.S. Coast Guard's Aids to Navigation (ATON) system, using buoys, lights, and dayboards compliant with IALA standards.
In fog or other inclement weather, there are a variety of radar, radio and GPS systems utilized by mariners.
Outside of this forum and other like dark holes of this fandom I doubt there is much critique to be found regarding road concept art.
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2025, 11:55:34 AMThe real issue: MDTA's PR blunder in showing a cable-stayed bridge without the promised ship-collision protection system. Fenders or dolphins should've been in the concept to reassure the public post-Dali. It's not about final plans -- engineers are still studying -- but leaving out safety visuals is tone-deaf. This isn't a scam, just a dumb oversight. Hari-kari, stupidcide, stupid-kari, dumbcide . .
Clutch those pearls.
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2025, 11:55:34 AMQuoteAdd MUTCD compliant warning signs for the bridge so ships can see it and avoid the islands and towers.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) governs road traffic signs, signals, and markings, not maritime navigation.
Ship guidance falls under the U.S. Coast Guard's Aids to Navigation (ATON) system, using buoys, lights, and dayboards compliant with IALA standards.
In fog or other inclement weather, there are a variety of radar, radio and GPS systems utilized by mariners.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 15, 2025, 06:54:05 PM(https://i.imgur.com/vzGX7eH.png)
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 27, 2024, 08:01:28 PMThere 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.
The original bridge had span length of 800 feet which some shipping concerns at that time said was too short.
Now the same thing is being said about 1,200 feet given the massive increase in ship sizes in the last 30 years.
Skyway vertical navigational clearance (VNC) of 185 feet is now at least 30 feet lower than what the most recent shipping channel bridges have been providing.
It has the same 185 feet of VNC and 1,200 feet of HNC as the Key Bridge did.
The Skyway is one of the bridges that some maritime interests have declared inadequate for current and future shipping clearances, and they are calling for replacements. Functionally obsolete after only 30 years.
Water depths are 22 feet or more at mean low water for 2.2 miles along the Skyway route. Some heavy ships can still operate there without running aground. With spring tides and northeasterly high winds the waters can be 5 feet deeper.
The official nautical chart online --
NOAA Chart 11412 Tampa Bay and St. Joseph Sound
Water depths at the Sunshine Skyway main piers is 30 feet MLLW.
Given high tides and Spring tides and strong westerly winds it could be 35 or 36 feet which is almost the draft of the Dali, and some very large ships would still draw less than that.
I was rereading a book on the Sunshine Skyway disaster and it said that MV Summit Venture was lightly loaded ("in ballast") and was drawing 21 feet at the bow and 32 feet at the stern. A differential typical for a lightly loaded bulk carrier.
So that is another factor to allow for in a protection scheme. The forward part of a 600 foot long ship could be a lot higher in the water than the stern and drawing a lot less water than the average for that ship. In other words, partly or wholly defeat a protection scheme based on water depth.
I worked up a report on this event, highlighting the similarities and differences with the Key Bridge.
The chief difference was that the Baltimore incident happened in clear weather and in a channel that was tangent (straight) from Fort McHenry all the way to 2 miles east of the bridge. So especially for an eastbound (outbound) ship like Dali there are no channel bends even remotely near the bridge.
The Sunshine Skyway disaster was a perfect storm of multiple factors to the point that the handling of the vessel cannot really be blamed, nor the design of the bridge. Although these were very controversial at the time in the aftermath.
The Sunshine Skyway disaster occurred on May 9, 1980, when the freighter Summit Venture collided with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay, Florida, causing a portion of the bridge to collapse. Here are the key facts and findings.
Weather Conditions
- The collision happened during a severe thunderstorm with winds gusting up to 70 mph and zero visibility.
- Heavy rain and squall lines made navigation extremely challenging, obscuring buoys and other visual aids.
- There was an about 90-degree change in wind direction (from SW to NW) during the severe thunderstorm, which made navigation unpredictable and extremely difficult.
- The ship's radar was rendered nearly useless in the dense rain, which obscured both the channel markers and nearby hazards. No GPS tracking systems back then.
Channel Design
- The shipping channel under the Sunshine Skyway Bridge was narrow and lacked modern navigational aids.
- The bridge's piers were not adequately protected, leaving them vulnerable to collisions.
- The channel included a 18-degree dogleg turn just a quarter-mile west of the bridge. This abrupt turn added to the challenge of navigating eastbound (inbound) large ships in poor weather. Local ship pilots called this the "Combat Zone" due to the risks in passing the bridge and oncoming vessels safely.
- After the disaster, the replacement bridge incorporated enhanced safety features, including rock islands and dolphins (barriers designed to protect bridge piers). [I have already opined on the impossibility of testing and verifying this thru real-world tests.]
- The replacement bridge had a main span 1,200 feet long -- compared to 800 feet on the original which some mariners considered marginal for large ships.
- The replacement bridge main span was built about 1,000 feet east of the original -- alleviating the closeness of the bridge to the channel 18-degree dogleg.
- The Tampa Bay deep shipping channel is dredged and takes a number of bends and doglegs between the Gulf and the terminals.
Impact and Aftermath
- The MV Summit Venture weighed about 19,000 tons and was moving at 8.5 knots (9.5 mph).
- The Summit Venture was reportedly blown out of the channel due to strong winds and low visibility, putting it dangerously close to the bridge's unprotected piers.
- All of this unfolded at the worst possible moment — right as the ship approached the bridge -- at 0.2 mile from the bridge visual and radar views were obscured by the torrential rain.
- The collision caused the collapse of the southbound span of the bridge, sending six cars, a truck, and a Greyhound bus plunging into the water.
- 35 people lost their lives, with only one survivor.
- The disaster led to the construction of a new Sunshine Skyway Bridge, which opened in 1987 with improved safety measures.
Investigation and Findings and Legacy
- The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) determined that poor weather forecasting played a role, as it did not provide adequate warnings about the severity of the storm.
- The ship's pilot, John Lerro, faced both a pilot association investigation and a court case. However, he was ultimately held blameless for the incident. The court recognized that he had followed appropriate procedures to the best of his ability under impossible circumstances. A perfect storm so to speak.
- John Lerro was unfairly castigated in the state and local press and by his Tampa Bay piloting colleagues. The press mainly out of ignorance of the technical issues at hand, which is par for the course for them, and his piloting colleagues due to the fact that they saw him as an affirmative action hire.
- John Lerro even after his exoneration, was still attacked by some in the press, some in the piloting association, and some in the court system. It was a dogs breakfast.
- This disaster highlighted flaws in bridge design, including the narrowness of the main span (800 feet), the closeness to the channel dogleg, and the lack of protection for the bridge piers.
- The new Sunshine Skyway Bridge built after the incident included dolphin structures to shield the piers, had a longer main span of 1,200 feet, and was relocated to a safer distance from a 18-degree dogleg in the shipping channel.
- The event also underscored the importance of advanced navigation aids and improved weather forecasting for maritime safety.
The Summit Venture freighter was moving at approximately 8.5 knots (about 9.5 mph) when it collided with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. While this speed might seem relatively slow, the ship's massive size and weight of over 19,000 gross tons meant that even at low speeds, the impact force was substantial enough to cause the catastrophic collapse of the bridge's southbound span.
. . . . .
NTSB-MAR-81-3
National Transportation Safety Board
Marine Accident Report
Ramming of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge by the Liberian Bulk Carrier Summit Venture, Tampa Bay, Florida, May 9, 1980
Quote:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the SUMMIT VENTURE's unexpected encounter with severe weather involving high winds and heavy rain associated with a line of intense thunderstorms which overtook the vessel as it approached the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, the failure of the National Weather Service to issue a severe weather warning for mariners, and the failure of the pilot to abandon the transit when visual and radar navigational references for the channel and the bridge were lost in the heavy rain. Contributing to the loss of life and to the extensive damage was the lack of a structural pier protection system which could have absorbed some of the impact force or redirected the vessel. Contributing to the loss of life was the lack of a motorist warning system which could have warned the highway vehicle drivers of the danger ahead.
. . . . .
Separated out in bullet points --
The NTSB's probable cause for the Sunshine Skyway disaster identified several key factors:
- The Summit Venture unexpectedly encountered intense thunderstorms with high winds and heavy rain, which severely reduced visibility and made navigation extremely difficult.
- The National Weather Service failed to issue a severe weather warning for mariners, leaving the ship's crew unprepared for the sudden and extreme conditions.
- The pilot lost both visual and radar references for the channel and the bridge due to the heavy rain, which contributed to the ship veering off course.
- The pilot did not abandon the transit despite losing critical navigational references, which ultimately led to the collision.
[my opinion was that the loss of both visual and radar references occurred too late and too close to the bridge. He didn't want to veer sharply back into the channel because he knew that could cause a collision with a gasoline tanker coming the opposite direction, very close but invisible in the storm.]
- The absence of a pier protection system to absorb or redirect the impact contributed to the extensive damage to the bridge.
[my opinion on that has been posted before]
- The lack of a warning system for highway vehicles also contributed to the loss of life, as drivers were unaware of the danger ahead.
Is "probable cause" an indecisive term?
The NTSB uses "probable cause" because investigations often face incomplete evidence — wreckage may be lost, data corrupted, or witnesses unreliable. "Probable" acknowledges this uncertainty while asserting the most likely cause based on rigorous analysis. It's a precise term, avoiding absolute certainty when evidence isn't conclusive, ensuring credibility and legal defensibility.
The NTSB's "probable cause" is not indecisive because it reflects a rigorous, evidence-based conclusion drawn from extensive investigation, including data analysis, witness interviews, and expert input. It identifies the most likely reason for an accident, balancing precision with available evidence, and is explicitly distinguished from speculative or inconclusive findings.
The legal defensibility may be the most important -- NTSB reports are for determining accident causes for the issuance of safety recommendations to the industry and government -- not intended to be used in a court of law to settle any disputes about the accident.
Sources:
Skyway: The True Story of Tampa Bay's Signature Bridge and the Man Who Brought It Down, by Bill DeYoung, 2013.
The NTSB accident report for the Sunshine Skyway disaster is titled "Marine Accident Report: Ramming of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge by the Liberian Bulk Carrier Summit Venture, Tampa Bay, Florida, May 9, 1980" (NTSB-MAR-81-3)
I'm starting to think this thread needs a Goat Quote or two.
The animal or Greatest of All Time?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 21, 2025, 02:41:10 PMThe animal or Greatest of All Time?
The pyramid variety which pleases Goat Jesus but often has the side effect of locking threads. I'm prepared to sacrifice this thread in the interest of making goats happy.
I skimmed a lot of what was said, but I did catch this...
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2025, 02:14:07 PMThe chief difference was that the Baltimore incident happened in clear weather and in a channel that was tangent (straight) from Fort McHenry all the way to 2 miles east of the bridge. So especially for an eastbound (outbound) ship like Dali there are no channel bends even remotely near the bridge.
Left out of this was the incident occurred at night, which is a very important detail.
Left out of this was the incident occurred as the ship lost, regained, and lost power again, which is a very important detail.
Weather may have been clear. Darkness makes viewing objects and obstructions harder. Electrical issues on the ship further impacted the ability to go straight.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2025, 03:30:48 PMI skimmed a lot of what was said, but I did catch this...
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2025, 02:14:07 PMThe chief difference was that the Baltimore incident happened in clear weather and in a channel that was tangent (straight) from Fort McHenry all the way to 2 miles east of the bridge. So especially for an eastbound (outbound) ship like Dali there are no channel bends even remotely near the bridge.
Left out of this was the incident occurred at night, which is a very important detail.
Left out of this was the incident occurred as the ship lost, regained, and lost power again, which is a very important detail.
Weather may have been clear. Darkness makes viewing objects and obstructions harder. Electrical issues on the ship further impacted the ability to go straight.
I didn't go deep into what happened in Baltimore in that post. My quote sums up that it was gross and criminal negligence that a cargo ship was operated that way in confined waters.
I don't know whether the weather was clear in the sense of a cloudless sky. But ..
The camera that captured the collapse was mounted on a home in Riviera Beach, Maryland. It was part of the StreamTime LIVE network and had been installed to monitor activity at the Port of Baltimore. This unexpected footage became a significant record of the event.
So the camera was 3.5 miles from the bridge and 7 miles from the Seagirt Marine Terminal which is visible in the background. Clear weather in a nautical sense and no rain or high winds.
So we can say that weather was not a factor.
I have done boating at night in other areas of Chesapeake Bay and there are all sorts of lighted buoys and fixed beacons all over the areas where boats can go. We had a pencil beam halogen spotlight that could illuminate reflectors on channel markers 5 miles away. A private sailboat 32 feet long.
Lighted channel markers can be seen on the chart of the harbor that has been posted and linked in the post that I quoted.
Ships nowadays also have high-tech radars and GPS tracking systems.
Nighttime in and of itself is no excuse for wrecking a boat.
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2025, 04:34:35 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2025, 03:30:48 PMI skimmed a lot of what was said, but I did catch this...
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2025, 02:14:07 PMThe chief difference was that the Baltimore incident happened in clear weather and in a channel that was tangent (straight) from Fort McHenry all the way to 2 miles east of the bridge. So especially for an eastbound (outbound) ship like Dali there are no channel bends even remotely near the bridge.
Left out of this was the incident occurred at night, which is a very important detail.
Left out of this was the incident occurred as the ship lost, regained, and lost power again, which is a very important detail.
Weather may have been clear. Darkness makes viewing objects and obstructions harder. Electrical issues on the ship further impacted the ability to go straight.
I didn't go deep into what happened in Baltimore in that post. My quote sums up that it was gross and criminal negligence that a cargo ship was operated that way in confined waters.
I don't know whether the weather was clear in the sense of a cloudless sky. But ..
The camera that captured the collapse was mounted on a home in Riviera Beach, Maryland. It was part of the StreamTime LIVE network and had been installed to monitor activity at the Port of Baltimore. This unexpected footage became a significant record of the event.
So the camera was 3.5 miles from the bridge and 7 miles from the Seagirt Marine Terminal which is visible in the background. Clear weather in a nautical sense and no rain or high winds.
So we can say that weather was not a factor.
I have done boating at night in other areas of Chesapeake Bay and there are all sorts of lighted buoys and fixed beacons all over the areas where boats can go. We had a pencil beam halogen spotlight that could illuminate reflectors on channel markers 5 miles away. A private sailboat 32 feet long.
Lighted channel markers can be seen on the chart of the harbor that has been posted and linked in the post that I quoted.
Ships nowadays also have high-tech radars and GPS tracking systems.
Nighttime in and of itself is no excuse for wrecking a boat.
So lighthouses were a waste of an idea?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2025, 09:21:41 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 21, 2025, 04:34:35 PMI have done boating at night in other areas of Chesapeake Bay and there are all sorts of lighted buoys and fixed beacons all over the areas where boats can go. We had a pencil beam halogen spotlight that could illuminate reflectors on channel markers 5 miles away. A private sailboat 32 feet long.
Lighted channel markers can be seen on the chart of the harbor that has been posted and linked in the post that I quoted.
Ships nowadays also have high-tech radars and GPS tracking systems.
Nighttime in and of itself is no excuse for wrecking a boat.
So lighthouses were a waste of an idea?
A battleship was on exercises at sea in heavy and stormy weather.
The ship's captain, a highly decorated admiral, was on the bridge when he noticed a light in the distance. The light appeared to be on a collision course with his vessel. He instructed his signalman to send a message to the approaching light:
"Change your course 20 degrees starboard."
The reply came back quickly: "Recommend you change your course 20 degrees starboard."
The admiral was annoyed by the reply and ordered another message to be sent: "I am an admiral. Change your course 20 degrees starboard."
The reply was curt: "I am a seaman second class. Recommend you change your course 20 degrees starboard."
Now infuriated, the admiral sent one final, authoritative message: "This is a battleship. Change your course immediately!"
The final reply came: "This is a lighthouse. YOU change YOUR course!"
We can only hope -- Maryland is doing nothing to expand and rebuild the American Legion Bridge on I-495 -- and wants $2 billion in federal largesse to build a new Key Bridge -- when the original one carried 1/8 the traffic of the ALB.
Maryland cheats Virginia and the entire eastern seaboard by refusing participate in building any Washington Outer Bypass of I-95.
. . . . . . . . .
Quote
Maryland prepares plan B in case federal Key Bridge funding disappears
By Tolly Taylor, WBAL-TV 11
May 7, 2025
If you thought full federal funding to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge was a settled issue, think again.
Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson said Tuesday morning that the pot of federal money meant to fund the rebuild could be diverted, saying the proposed federal budget could lead to a $430 million cut to Maryland's budget.
"It is absolutely critical that we rebuild the bridge," Ferguson said.
Ferguson also said he hasn't heard anything specific to make him question whether the federal government will pay the full cost of rebuilding the bridge, but he acknowledges that with hundreds of millions of dollars in unexpected cuts so far this year, state leadership is planning ahead for the possibility.
That led to other questions about cuts.
"Of course, that's something that's in our analysis of possibilities, but I have no specific information that gives us any reason to have any concern that those funds will not be available for reimbursement when we go toward construction," Ferguson said.
Last week, a bond-rating agency issued a negative outlook for Maryland Transportation Authority revenue bonds, citing uncertainty in reconstructing the Key Bridge. If the federal government doesn't cover the full cost, Maryland could be on the hook for almost $200 million.
"The mechanism for which it would be reimbursed is an emergency fund out of (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), that is where those dollars land," Ferguson said.
"Congress has the power of the purse, so it could always pass a bill that could transfer funds."
Before President Joe Biden left office, Congress approved funding to replenish that FEMA emergency fund.
But Maryland's Senate president recognizes how things could change.
"Congress has the power of the purse, so it could always pass a bill that could transfer funds or remove them in some way," Ferguson said.
"A number of Southern states have projects that are potentially to be reimbursed out of that fund."
But Ferguson said that because many states rely on the FEMA funds for emergencies, any move to remove those funds would hurt many states, not just Maryland.
"I think there are a number of Southern states that have projects that are potentially to be reimbursed out of that fund — and Republican states — so that's my sense of why we believe that there's not a huge question," Ferguson said.
Ferguson said rebuilding the Key Bridge has to get done, meaning other state projects would suffer if the federal government doesn't pay for 100% of the cost.
That was certainly an opinion.
I forgot to post the link --
https://www.wbal.com/absolutely-critical-maryland-prepares-plan-b-in-case-federal-key-bridge-funding-disappears
This is paywalled . . . I surmise it is OK to post the whole article.
. . . . . .
I will pick this out --
QuoteBut earlier this year, the National Transportation Safety Board released results of an analysis that found the Key Bridge's risk level for collapse if it were struck by a ship was almost 30 times as high as a threshold set by national standards.
Those standards — first issued in 1991 and updated in 2009 — recommended that the nation's bridge owners conduct collision risk analyses. Jennifer Homendy, the safety board's chair, said Maryland never did that for the Key Bridge nor the Chesapeake Bay Bridge northeast of Annapolis. Had the state carried out a review, Homendy said, it could have mitigated risk before the Dali crash.
That will be battled out in court, using legal arguments that may or may not be valid from an engineering standpoint.
I have made the case before that I don't see any feasible way to make the original bridge invulnerable to a Dali-like event.
The state could be in the dock for billions of dollars of payouts for these lawsuits.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maryland could see an onslaught of lawsuits over Key Bridge failures
May 24, 2025
By Katie Mettler
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/05/24/maryland-lawsuit-key-bridge-baltimore/
Quote
The state of Maryland could face an onslaught of wrongful-death and negligence lawsuits related to its upkeep of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which was destroyed last year when a massive cargo ship lost power and crashed into a critical support pillar, killing six people.
Though no civil litigation against the state has commenced yet, more than 20 people and businesses have sent letters to Maryland State Treasurer Dereck E. Davis saying they intend to sue the state for its failures to keep the Baltimore bridge's roadway — and the people using it — safe from tragedy. Attorneys representing those alleged victims have estimated the total payout amount could run into the billions of dollars.
The notices were submitted to the state just before the first anniversary of the deadly collapse that occurred March 26, 2024, according to copies of the letters obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request.
They came from attorneys representing the estates of the six men who were killed and the two men who survived; nearby residents who claim their homes were damaged when the span crashed into the Patapsco River; and businesses and longshoremen who allege they suffered economic losses as a result of the Port of Baltimore's 11-week closure following the collapse.
The warning letters mark an escalation in the mounting scrutiny Maryland state leaders have recently faced related to the circumstances of the Key Bridge collapse. The state attorney general, the Justice Department and victims of the tragedy have long contended that the Dali cargo ship's owner, Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and operator, Synergy Marine Pte Ltd., are primarily responsible for the deadly collapse because they allowed the vessel to set sail despite knowledge that it was dangerous.
But earlier this year, the National Transportation Safety Board released results of an analysis that found the Key Bridge's risk level for collapse if it were struck by a ship was almost 30 times as high as a threshold set by national standards.
Those standards — first issued in 1991 and updated in 2009 — recommended that the nation's bridge owners conduct collision risk analyses. Jennifer Homendy, the safety board's chair, said Maryland never did that for the Key Bridge nor the Chesapeake Bay Bridge northeast of Annapolis. Had the state carried out a review, Homendy said, it could have mitigated risk before the Dali crash.
Maryland officials "could have known and should have known," she said at a news conference in March, adding that state leaders had "no excuse."
The safety board's sharp rebuke of the Maryland Transportation Authority was cited across many of the lawsuit notices, according to the letters.
Separately, reporting from The Post in March revealed that lenient safety requirements and lax state oversight — which spanned the administrations of at least six governors — made the bridge and the men working on it less safe, including a safety plan for bridge construction work that omitted guidance for emergency evacuations and communications.
Attorneys filed their notices ahead of March 26 because, in Maryland, anyone wishing to sue a state entity for damages must notify the state treasurer within one year of the qualifying incident. They have three years, though, to formally file a lawsuit in court.
Spokespeople for Gov. Wes Moore (D) and the Maryland Transportation Authority referred questions about the notices to Attorney General Anthony G. Brown. A spokesperson for his office declined to comment on the potential litigation.
The combined billions those lawsuits could seek would be a pricey liability for the state as its leaders grapple with financial woes, caused at least in part by the Trump administration's cuts to the federal workforce, upon which Maryland's economy heavily relies.
Though those with potential claims against the state could file their lawsuits now, none yet have, in part because dozens of the victims of the collapse have joined the Maryland Attorney General's Office in litigation against the Dali's owner and operator.
In that case, U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar in Maryland will decide whether to limit the liability of Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine by placing a cap on how much money they may be required to pay out to those suing them — the first step in what is expected to be years of litigation.
The parties are in discovery, and the attorneys are in the midst of conducting depositions of the ship's crew, owner and operator, though the depositions of eight crew members completed so far have been heavily redacted.
The claimants' attorneys have asked Bredar to order the attorneys representing the Dali and its crew to limit those redactions, so that the information in those depositions would be available to the public, in keeping with a previous ruling the judge made. They also said in court documents that the blanket confidentiality means counsel must "walk on egg shells" in court and during other depositions to the detriment of their case.
"The Court should not overlook the First Amendment implications of these overly broad designations. These are not secret proceedings," the claimants' attorneys wrote in their motion to the judge. "Blanket confidentiality designations, as this heavily redacted brief makes clear, inevitably lead to blanket sealing of judicial records. And this Court has repeatedly admonished the parties that concrete measures must be taken to ensure public access to this important proceeding."
Attorneys for the ship and crew have argued the depositions should be sealed because of the FBI's ongoing criminal investigation into the Dali. Many of the depositions are scheduled to take place on neutral ground in London, at the request of the ship's owner and operator, because representatives from those companies did not want to come to Baltimore.
The claimants' attorneys begrudgingly agreed to conduct the depositions in London, according to court documents, but told the judge that they believe the owner and operator's refusal to come to Baltimore means they relinquish their right to later testify at trial.
"They cannot and should not have their cake and eat it too," said admiralty attorney Todd Lochner, one of the claimant attorneys in the limited liability case.
A spokesperson for Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
After discovery is complete, the parties will have an opportunity to ask the judge for a summary judgment — likely to occur in the fall — in which Bredar could choose to rule on the liability cap ahead of a full trial that is scheduled to begin in 2026. Once the questions of a liability cap are resolved, then the dozens of claimants will proceed with their separate lawsuits and argue them in different courthouses on their individual merits.
https://wtop.com/baltimore/2025/07/demolition-on-the-rest-of-baltimores-collapsed-key-bridge-will-begin-on-july-7-heres-what-to-expect/
Quote from: BrianP on July 07, 2025, 11:08:34 AMhttps://wtop.com/baltimore/2025/07/demolition-on-the-rest-of-baltimores-collapsed-key-bridge-will-begin-on-july-7-heres-what-to-expect/
I have gone into great detail about why I consider their bridge dimensional design to be deeply flawed with the same vulnerabilities to destruction as the previous one -- and this agency to be playing with a quarter deck.
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2025, 11:23:02 AMQuote from: BrianP on July 07, 2025, 11:08:34 AMhttps://wtop.com/baltimore/2025/07/demolition-on-the-rest-of-baltimores-collapsed-key-bridge-will-begin-on-july-7-heres-what-to-expect/
I have gone into great detail about why I consider their bridge dimensional design to be deeply flawed with the same vulnerabilities to destruction as the previous one -- and this agency to be playing with a quarter deck.
And your misgivings have what to do with the demolition of the previous structure? Can't anyone else have a crack at posting in this thread? We already know you want a tunnel.
You can no longer cross the old bridge on Google Maps Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2097743,-76.5394925,3a,75y,84.22h,76.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stKnn9TlC9nGFnsrNHgUIPg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D13.238972568883852%26panoid%3DtKnn9TlC9nGFnsrNHgUIPg%26yaw%3D84.21568909980498!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYzMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2025, 11:32:35 AMQuote from: Beltway on July 07, 2025, 11:23:02 AMI have gone into great detail about why I consider their bridge dimensional design to be deeply flawed with the same vulnerabilities to destruction as the previous one -- and this agency to be playing with a quarter deck.
And your misgivings have what to do with the demolition of the previous structure? Can't anyone else have a crack at posting in this thread? We already know you want a tunnel.
I don't have any real issue with the demolition -- the only reason not to would be if they were going to simply replace those spans -- and that would have the same problems dimensionally.
Other posters can take as many cracks in this thread as their heart desires -- you can put up 100 posts in a day -- and I won't mind. That would be up to the moderators to decide on whether to allow that.
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2025, 11:23:02 AMQuote from: BrianP on July 07, 2025, 11:08:34 AMhttps://wtop.com/baltimore/2025/07/demolition-on-the-rest-of-baltimores-collapsed-key-bridge-will-begin-on-july-7-heres-what-to-expect/
I have gone into great detail about why I consider their bridge dimensional design to be deeply flawed with the same vulnerabilities to destruction as the previous one -- and this agency to be playing with a quarter deck.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2025, 11:32:35 AMAnd your misgivings have what to do with the demolition of the previous structure?
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2025, 12:42:50 PMI don't have any real issue with the demolition
So your comment really didn't have anything to do with the post you quoted.
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2025, 12:42:50 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2025, 11:32:35 AMQuote from: Beltway on July 07, 2025, 11:23:02 AMI have gone into great detail about why I consider their bridge dimensional design to be deeply flawed with the same vulnerabilities to destruction as the previous one -- and this agency to be playing with a quarter deck.
And your misgivings have what to do with the demolition of the previous structure? Can't anyone else have a crack at posting in this thread? We already know you want a tunnel.
I don't have any real issue with the demolition -- the only reason not to would be if they were going to simply replace those spans -- and that would have the same problems dimensionally.
Other posters can take as many cracks in this thread as their heart desires -- you can put up 100 posts in a day -- and I won't mind. That would be up to the moderators to decide on whether to allow that.
Ah, throwing mods at me I see? I guess they won't mind me saying that you're continuing attempts to hijack this thread to voice your self-centric views are pretty lame.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2025, 12:50:47 PMQuote from: Beltway on July 07, 2025, 12:42:50 PMI don't have any real issue with the demolition -- the only reason not to would be if they were going to simply replace those spans -- and that would have the same problems dimensionally.
Other posters can take as many cracks in this thread as their heart desires -- you can put up 100 posts in a day -- and I won't mind. That would be up to the moderators to decide on whether to allow that.
Ah, throwing mods at me I see? I guess they won't mind me saying that you're continuing attempts to hijack this thread to voice your self-centric views are pretty lame.
I posted my detailed opinions over a several day period with the last on April 21st -- post #737. They remain for anyone to read.
Even now the thread is only up to post #749. I have revised my posting style to be more concise and limited and that shows.
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2025, 03:31:26 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2025, 12:50:47 PMQuote from: Beltway on July 07, 2025, 12:42:50 PMI don't have any real issue with the demolition -- the only reason not to would be if they were going to simply replace those spans -- and that would have the same problems dimensionally.
Other posters can take as many cracks in this thread as their heart desires -- you can put up 100 posts in a day -- and I won't mind. That would be up to the moderators to decide on whether to allow that.
Ah, throwing mods at me I see? I guess they won't mind me saying that you're continuing attempts to hijack this thread to voice your self-centric views are pretty lame.
I posted my detailed opinions over a several day period with the last on April 21st -- post #737. They remain for anyone to read.
Even now the thread is only up to post #748. I have revised my posting style to be more concise and limited and that shows.
And yet, you chose to highlight again when someone else posted about the original span being demolished. Doesn't seem as though that you wanted your comments and thoughts to disappear into background.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2025, 12:18:54 PMYou can no longer cross the old bridge on Google Maps Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2097743,-76.5394925,3a,75y,84.22h,76.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stKnn9TlC9nGFnsrNHgUIPg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D13.238972568883852%26panoid%3DtKnn9TlC9nGFnsrNHgUIPg%26yaw%3D84.21568909980498!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYzMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D.
A good view of the skyline and the cranes at the Dundalk terminal are still available at https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2258404,-76.5167945,3a,16.2y,313.45h,89.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1so2rR7IMdEFP7LRIXOdgvjg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.05288936554730128%26panoid%3Do2rR7IMdEFP7LRIXOdgvjg%26yaw%3D313.448902669387!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYzMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D .
And if you spin that view around you can see the abandoned cranes at Sparrows Point.
Full transcript of the WTOP article is as follows:
Quote from: WTOPDemolition of the remaining structures of Baltimore's collapsed Key Bridge will begin on July 7, the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) announced on Thursday.
The demolition efforts in the Patapsco River will take several months with the use of heavy machinery, the MDTA warned.
What will the demolition look like?
Work will start with the removal of the bridge deck over the river, then demolition of sections over Hawkins Point and Sollers Point.
Crews will initially remove parts of the collapsed bridge that stand in the way of the alignment of the Key Bridge rebuild, which is expected to be completed in 2028.
MDTA says controlled detonations will not be used during this phase of the demolition.
What should nearby residents expect?
There will be tug and barge operations on the river, with heavy equipment and trucks seen on the remaining bridge structure.
MDTA says boats and those in the waterways should avoid the collapse site near the demolition process. Demolition crews will use excavators, concrete saws, vacuums, cranes, and trucks.
Heavy and loud construction work will be from 7 a.m. through 7 p.m.
What's next for the Key Bridge rebuild?
The Key Bridge reconstruction project will cost about $2 billion, and it will take about four years to complete.
Pre-construction activities began in January 2025, which included inspections of nearby properties, riverbed scanning, and soil sample collection. In February, the MDTA authorized three contracts worth $20 million each for construction management and inspection services.
A new cable-stay design revealed in February shows that the new structure will visually resemble the original bridge while implementing structural improvements. The new Key Bridge will be taller to better accommodate ship traffic, with the federal shipping channel expanding from 700 to 1,000 feet wide and the base raised by 45 feet to a height of 230 feet.
The bridge roadway will still be two lanes wide going in each direction. Other pier support structures will be implemented to secure the structure.
According to the MDTA, other bridge features include:
- Two 12-foot lanes in each direction, 10-foot-wide outside shoulders and 4-foot-wide inside shoulders per direction of travel
- Total Bridge length more than 2 miles
- Two bridge towers more than 600 feet tall
- Distance between main span pylons exceeding 1,600 feet
- Total length of cable-stayed main span exceeding 3,300 feet
- Expected life span of 100 years
"Our new bridge will also be constructed in accordance with the most advanced industry standards and the very best in infrastructure design," Maryland Gov. Moore said. "We are going to use the best materials available and employ many Marylanders to build it."
A need for a new Key Bridge
Residents and business owners can't wait until the new Key Bridge is built.
Donna, the general manager of Donna's Tavern in Dundalk, said her business and others nearby suffered when the bridge collapsed.
"When the bridge came down. it hurt everyone, and it hurt us," Donna said. "It's tough for people getting to this side to enjoy things, and we're looking forward to the new bridge coming."
Lauren Ratliff told WJZ that she has to go 45 minutes out of her way to get to her job.
She said the bridge was a big part of Baltimore's history, and she wishes some of it could be preserved.
"In one way, yes, I'm excited, but in another way it's sad," Ratliff said.
"I'm just excited to see progress," Donna said. "It will be nice to have the bridge back."
Who is paying for the new Key Bridge?
In December 2024, Congress passed a deal on a federal spending package, which allocated $100 billion for disaster relief, including the entire cost of a new Key Bridge.
At the time, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said the efforts to complete the work on a new Key Bridge were "on time and on budget."
How did Baltimore's Key Bridge collapse?
On March 26, 2024, the cargo ship DALI, a 948-foot vessel managed by Singapore-based company Synergy Marine Group, lost power before crashing into the Key Bridge, according to investigators. Six construction workers performing road work on the bridge died after falling into the Patapsco River.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said the ship lost power four times in 12 hours before the collision.
The NTSB blamed MDTA for not conducting a critical vulnerability assessment on the Key Bridge, which it said could have identified the structure's risk of collapse.
The NTSB review found the level of risk for a catastrophic collapse for the Key Bridge was nearly 30 times higher than acceptable risk levels.
"The MDTA would've had information to proactively identify strategies to reduce the risk of a collapse and loss of lives associated with a vessel collision with the bridge," MDTA chair Jennifer Homendy said.
Quote from: WTOPThe NTSB blamed MDTA for not conducting a critical vulnerability assessment on the Key Bridge, which it said could have identified the structure's risk of collapse.
The NTSB review found the level of risk for a catastrophic collapse for the Key Bridge was nearly 30 times higher than acceptable risk levels.
"The MDTA would've had information to proactively identify strategies to reduce the risk of a collapse and loss of lives associated with a vessel collision with the bridge," MDTA chair Jennifer Homendy said.
MDTA still has released no information on how they will protect this bridge from ship collisions.
On their website they have this rendering with little concrete tubs around the main piers and looks puny compared to the Sunshine Skyway system. A public relations blunder.
The Sunshine Skyway and their protective measures is a 40-year old design when ships were much smaller. MV Summit Venture was around 19,000 tons. The biggest ships now are around 200,000 tons.
They finally put something on their website about protection schemes.
QuoteHow will the new design prevent another bridge strike?
The bridge piers will be protected by massive protection structures, which will be designed per the latest American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications and follow best practices for modern vessel collision protection. Additionally, the main span length of the bridge has been increased to provide additional clearance from the shipping channel.
I have several comments about this.
It is way too general to provide any real info to the public. It would be appropriate to see a conceptual design in plan view.
They are claiming a 1,600 foot main span length when the USCG permit says 1,400 feet. Neither is much of an improvement over the original 1,200 feet, and the main piers will still be in water 35 to 40 feet deep at mean high water level.
What are "massive protection structures" and how will they protect the bridge without impeding water flows in the river? In water that deep it would take huge fills to build an island with 2:1 slopes (at minimum) down to the riverbed. Concrete structures would be massive as well to be anchored to the bedrock and tall enough to be above water.
The AASHTO Guide Specifications and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges (2nd Edition) was published in 2009, is their latest, so it is already aging, and it wouldn't include the Dali event which IMHO completely changes the equation regarding probability and risk for bridges over busy shipping channels.
The Dali event -- in that a vessel that massive was handled that recklessly – like with nuclear reactors and weapons, you simply cannot afford to even make one mistake. So now we have to design for idiots that mishandle a 200,000 ton vessel in a busy harbor and at 17 knots (that speed from a recent ship flap in a busy harbor).
So there are no bridge protection standards out there that are up to date and usable. At least not for bridges over channels that carry large ocean-going ships.
The protection system for the Sunshine Skyway added 20% to the cost of the bridge project, so these things do have a considerable cost.
The Sunshine Skyway and their protective measures is a 40-year old design when ships were much smaller. MV Summit Venture was around 19,000 tons.
Once again -- bridge the main span all the way across the river (Gordie Howe for example) or build a tunnel (I-664 for example).
Another topic – all this talk about HAZMAT that constantly comes up on various forums that discuss this bridge. The best data I can find is that the AADT was about 32,000 with 10% large trucks with about 10% of the shipments being material that MDTA won't allow thru the tunnels.
So about 350 to 400 shipments per day. To me that is very little justification for spending $2 billion to avoid tunnels; granted there were the other 31,000 vehicles. But the two Interstate highway cross-harbor tunnels carry the 225,000 AADT now and have a total of 12 lanes.
That is about the same AADT as the I-495 American Legion Bridge which has 8 thru lanes. The Key Bridge had 1/7 of that traffic and Maryland is doing nothing to expand the ALB and the rest of I-495 between VA and I-270 to the VA 12-lane cross-section (4-2-2-4) with HOT lanes.
You can't transport hazardous materials or anything else across bridges that are now sitting in a junkyard.
I hold the Maryland highway administration establishment in utter contempt for their conduct in these matters.
So you'll feel better if they publish a fake picture? Clearly if they're still to be designed, you'll complain that the conceptual image isn't fact.
I kind of think what we need is for NE2 to make a meme about Beltway.
The Dali, a neopanamax ship, has a draft around 50 ft. So how is that supposed to reach one of the towers in water that's 40 ft or less? A smaller panamax ship has a draft around 40 ft. That likely would still run aground to some degree which would slow it down. And even if somehow it's slowly moving toward a tower something like a dolphin seems likely to stop it the rest of the way.
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2025, 01:31:03 PMI kind of think what we need is for NE2 to make a meme about Beltway.
Here's an appetizer: a beltway interchange with a dolphin.
https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Dolphin%E2%80%93Palmetto_Interchange
Quote from: BrianP on July 16, 2025, 02:04:41 PMThe Dali, a neopanamax ship, has a draft around 50 ft. So how is that supposed to reach one of the towers in water that's 40 ft or less? A smaller panamax ship has a draft around 40 ft. That likely would still run aground to some degree which would slow it down. And even if somehow it's slowly moving toward a tower something like a dolphin seems likely to stop it the rest of the way.
At the time of the collision with Pier 17 of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, the MV Dali was drawing approximately 39.9 feet of draft fore and aft. That's notably shallower than its maximum summer draft of about 49 feet, indicating it was not fully loaded when departing Baltimore.
At the time of the collision it was around 1:28 a.m. EDT on March 26, 2024 — the tidal state was near low tide. High tides there are about 2.1 feet higher.
Wind-driven tides—also called storm tides or wind setup—can raise water levels in the Patapsco River near the Key Bridge by an additional 1 to 3 feet, depending on wind speed, direction, and duration.
At the time of the collision the MV Dali was carrying approximately 95,000 tons of cargo, with a deadweight tonnage (DWT) of 116,851 metric tons and a displacement of about 149,000 metric tons
To give readers a picture of how much 100,000+ tons is, consider this -- the massive Cape Hatteras lighthouse weighs about 5,000 tons aboveground and about 1,000 tons below ground.
If it was out in open waters, what do you think would happen if such a ship hit it at 10 knots?
Quote from: NE2 on July 16, 2025, 03:00:17 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 16, 2025, 01:31:03 PMI kind of think what we need is for NE2 to make a meme about Beltway.
Here's an appetizer: a beltway interchange with a dolphin.
https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Dolphin%E2%80%93Palmetto_Interchange
Unfortunately, Flipper will not save the day.
Flipper will protect your divers from underwater threats -- but while he likes to jump briefly out of the water and likes the sensation of being in the air, his domain 99% of the time is underwater -- so he can't protect you from surface threats.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 16, 2025, 01:10:11 PMSo you'll feel better if they publish a fake picture? Clearly if they're still to be designed, you'll complain that the conceptual image isn't fact.
The real issue: MDTA's PR blunder in showing on their website an image of a cable-stayed bridge without the promised ship-collision protection system. Fenders or dolphins should've been in the concept to reassure the public post-Dali. It's not about final plans -- engineers are still studying -- but leaving out safety visuals is tone-deaf. This isn't a scam, just a dumb oversight.
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2025, 01:31:03 PMI kind of think what we need is for NE2 to make a meme about Beltway.
Quote from: NE2 on July 16, 2025, 03:00:17 PMHere's an appetizer: a beltway interchange with a dolphin.
https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Dolphin%E2%80%93Palmetto_Interchange
I was thinking something more like this:
(https://i.imgflip.com/a0gh00.jpg)
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2025, 03:21:07 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 16, 2025, 01:31:03 PMI kind of think what we need is for NE2 to make a meme about Beltway.
Quote from: NE2 on July 16, 2025, 03:00:17 PMHere's an appetizer: a beltway interchange with a dolphin.
https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Dolphin%E2%80%93Palmetto_Interchange
I was thinking something more like this:
Distracted? Nah, I'm staring at MDTA's CATEX dodge, skipping public input.
Gawking at truth ain't the issue -- MDTA's ignoring NTSB's 2025 vessel strike warnings is (MIR-25-10).
Tunnel's safer -- Hampton Roads' HRBT proves it. Meme's cute, but facts hit harder.
Distracted's you, dodging facts for pixels.
Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 03:29:37 PMDistracted's you, dodging facts for pixels.
What facts have I dodged? I don't even really care all that much about the issue. I'm just fascinated by your single-minded obsession with it.
I wonder sometimes if Beltway own stock in construction companies which specialize in building highway tunnels. I feel like this goes beyond just having a simple opinion and has devolved into an aggressive sales pitch.
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2025, 03:33:20 PMQuote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 03:29:37 PMDistracted's you, dodging facts for pixels.
What facts have I dodged? I don't even really care all that much about the issue. I'm just fascinated by your single-minded obsession with it.
I'm just fascinated (not really) by the coterie of posters in this thread who have nothing to say but Stupid Stuff.
Just like I walked away from Rothmann and ignored him after he started poking at me about my posts on the contract awards on the I-64 GAP Project, I will do the same with posters here.
I don't know, it feels like you want to endlessly goad everyone into arguing with you. Every time this thread tapers off or goes another direction and you're the one who injects yourself back into it.
Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 03:29:37 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 16, 2025, 03:21:07 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 16, 2025, 01:31:03 PMI kind of think what we need is for NE2 to make a meme about Beltway.
Quote from: NE2 on July 16, 2025, 03:00:17 PMHere's an appetizer: a beltway interchange with a dolphin.
https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Dolphin%E2%80%93Palmetto_Interchange
I was thinking something more like this:
Distracted? Nah, I'm staring at MDTA's CATEX dodge, skipping public input.
I didn't take Beltway as a treehugger.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 16, 2025, 04:05:13 PMI don't know, it feels like you want to endlessly goad everyone into arguing with you. Every time this thread tapers off or goes another direction and you're the one who injects yourself back into it.
Beltway does that in many other posts too. Not just this one. That's how Beltway is, it seems.
Michigan and Ontario show how bridge a busy shipping channel -- Gordie Howe International Bridge.
Cable-stayed bridge with no piers in the water, 2,900 foot main span, minimizing environmental impact, eliminating the risk of ship collisions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjTzPjjK/Gordie-Howe-Bridge.jpg)
Guess we're forgetting about all the decades it took to get the Gordie Howe Bridge project going? I guess we're going to also gloss over that the new bridge is almost completely consuming what is left of the Delray neighborhood? All of that is okay though, the project as it exists now agrees with the narrative stance you are trying to paint.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2025, 01:26:11 PMGuess we're forgetting about all the decades it took to get the Gordie Howe Bridge project going? I guess we're going to also gloss over that the new bridge is almost completely consuming what is left of the Delray neighborhood? All of that is okay though, the project as it exists now agrees with the narrative stance you are trying to paint.
Given that they are dealing with two nations, and it is funded through a public-private partnership (P3), there were years of legal and political wrangling, especially from the Ambassador Bridge's owner, who fiercely opposed the project, that would account for it taking a long time.
I could cite all three of the Bosphorus Strait bridges -- with no piers in the water.
Here's a list of the main span lengths of the three Bosphorus Strait bridges in feet:
+ 15 July Martyrs Bridge (First Bosphorus Bridge): 3,524 ft
+ Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (Second Bosphorus Bridge): 3,576 ft
+ Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge (Third Bosphorus Bridge): 4,619 ft
They also have a downtown highway tunnel and a downtown railroad tunnel under the strait -- those folks don't play!
Quote from: Beltway on July 20, 2025, 01:51:13 PMGiven that they are dealing with two nations, and it is funded through a public-private partnership (P3), there were years of legal and political wrangling, especially from the Ambassador Bridge's owner, who fiercely opposed the project, that would account for it taking a long time.
Pretty much every major project in the US involves years of legal and political wrangling. The Ambassador is not unique in that respect.
Quote from: Beltway on July 20, 2025, 01:51:13 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2025, 01:26:11 PMGuess we're forgetting about all the decades it took to get the Gordie Howe Bridge project going? I guess we're going to also gloss over that the new bridge is almost completely consuming what is left of the Delray neighborhood? All of that is okay though, the project as it exists now agrees with the narrative stance you are trying to paint.
Given that they are dealing with two nations, and it is funded through a public-private partnership (P3), there were years of legal and political wrangling, especially from the Ambassador Bridge's owner, who fiercely opposed the project, that would account for it taking a long time.
I could cite all three of the Bosphorus Strait bridges -- with no piers in the water.
Here's a list of the main span lengths of the three Bosphorus Strait bridges in feet:
+ 15 July Martyrs Bridge (First Bosphorus Bridge): 3,524 ft
+ Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (Second Bosphorus Bridge): 3,576 ft
+ Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge (Third Bosphorus Bridge): 4,619 ft
They also have a downtown highway tunnel and a downtown railroad tunnel under the strait -- those folks don't play!
Give M-85 or M-5 a drive out of downtown Detroit and get back to me on how much MDOT doesn't fuck around.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2025, 04:52:15 PMQuote from: Beltway on July 20, 2025, 01:51:13 PMGiven that they are dealing with two nations, and it is funded through a public-private partnership (P3), there were years of legal and political wrangling, especially from the Ambassador Bridge's owner, who fiercely opposed the project, that would account for it taking a long time.
I could cite all three of the Bosphorus Strait bridges -- with no piers in the water.
Here's a list of the main span lengths of the three Bosphorus Strait bridges in feet:
+ 15 July Martyrs Bridge (First Bosphorus Bridge): 3,524 ft
+ Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (Second Bosphorus Bridge): 3,576 ft
+ Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge (Third Bosphorus Bridge): 4,619 ft
They also have a downtown highway tunnel and a downtown railroad tunnel under the strait -- those folks don't play!
Give M-85 or M-5 a drive out of downtown Detroit and get back to me on how much MDOT doesn't fuck around.
They have another crossing under construction.
The Great Istanbul Tunnel is one of Turkey's most ambitious infrastructure projects — an undersea marvel designed to connect the European and Asian sides of Istanbul beneath the Bosphorus Strait.
Key Features
+ Length: 6.5 km (4.0 miles), making it the longest Bosphorus tunnel once completed
+ Depth: 110 meters below sea level
+ Diameter: 19 meters, accommodating three levels:
+ Two for road traffic
+ One for metro rail
Transportation Integration
+ Links Istanbul's three airports: Atatürk, Sabiha Gökçen, and Istanbul Airport
+ Connects nine metro lines and 11 other railways
+ Expected to serve 1.3 million passengers daily, with rail capacity of 70,000 passengers per hour per direction
Construction Timeline
+ Announced: 2015
+ Construction began: 2018
+ Expected completion: 2028
Financing and Engineering
+ Estimated cost: $3.5-4 billion
+ Built under a build–operate–transfer model
+ Excavation uses one of the world's largest tunnel boring machines -- 83 meters long and 20 meters wide
This will be Istanbul's third Bosphorus tunnel, following the Marmaray rail tunnel and the Eurasia road tunnel, but it's the first to combine road and rail in a single structure.
https://www.yukselproje.com.tr/en/projects/3-deck-great-istanbul-tunnel
Quote from: Beltway on July 28, 2025, 09:29:00 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2025, 04:52:15 PMQuote from: Beltway on July 20, 2025, 01:51:13 PMGiven that they are dealing with two nations, and it is funded through a public-private partnership (P3), there were years of legal and political wrangling, especially from the Ambassador Bridge's owner, who fiercely opposed the project, that would account for it taking a long time.
I could cite all three of the Bosphorus Strait bridges -- with no piers in the water.
Here's a list of the main span lengths of the three Bosphorus Strait bridges in feet:
+ 15 July Martyrs Bridge (First Bosphorus Bridge): 3,524 ft
+ Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (Second Bosphorus Bridge): 3,576 ft
+ Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge (Third Bosphorus Bridge): 4,619 ft
They also have a downtown highway tunnel and a downtown railroad tunnel under the strait -- those folks don't play!
Give M-85 or M-5 a drive out of downtown Detroit and get back to me on how much MDOT doesn't fuck around.
They have another crossing under construction.
The Great Istanbul Tunnel is one of Turkey's most ambitious infrastructure projects — an undersea marvel designed to connect the European and Asian sides of Istanbul beneath the Bosphorus Strait.
Key Features
+ Length: 6.5 km (4.0 miles), making it the longest Bosphorus tunnel once completed
+ Depth: 110 meters below sea level
+ Diameter: 19 meters, accommodating three levels:
+ Two for road traffic
+ One for metro rail
Transportation Integration
+ Links Istanbul's three airports: Atatürk, Sabiha Gökçen, and Istanbul Airport
+ Connects nine metro lines and 11 other railways
+ Expected to serve 1.3 million passengers daily, with rail capacity of 70,000 passengers per hour per direction
Construction Timeline
+ Announced: 2015
+ Construction began: 2018
+ Expected completion: 2028
Financing and Engineering
+ Estimated cost: $3.5-4 billion
+ Built under a build–operate–transfer model
+ Excavation uses one of the world's largest tunnel boring machines -- 83 meters long and 20 meters wide
This will be Istanbul's third Bosphorus tunnel, following the Marmaray rail tunnel and the Eurasia road tunnel, but it's the first to combine road and rail in a single structure.
https://www.yukselproje.com.tr/en/projects/3-deck-great-istanbul-tunnel
Nice dodge on Detroit and MDOT. Certainly took you long enough to reply.
Quote from: Beltway on July 28, 2025, 09:29:00 PMtunnel boring machines
I've heard those are boring.
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2025, 10:45:22 PMQuote from: Beltway on July 28, 2025, 09:29:00 PMtunnel boring machines
I've heard those are boring.
This whole thread got all things boring once Beltway started on about his fictional tunnel ideas.
Seems like more times than not with a few exceptions, Any new proposal for a tunnel in this country is fictional.
Quote from: Beltway on July 20, 2025, 01:17:59 PMMichigan and Ontario show how bridge a busy shipping channel -- Gordie Howe International Bridge.
Cable-stayed bridge with no piers in the water, 2,900 foot main span, minimizing environmental impact, eliminating the risk of ship collisions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjTzPjjK/Gordie-Howe-Bridge.jpg)
You do realize that this would be impossible with the new Key Bridge? Ergo, very strong dolphin protection is a must. If this were 1980 when the Sunshine Skyway bridge went down, I'm betting that you would've also argued in favor of a tunnel across Tampa Bay, given how you always say the same is needed here as well.
Quote from: Henry on July 28, 2025, 11:09:00 PMQuote from: Beltway on July 20, 2025, 01:17:59 PMMichigan and Ontario show how bridge a busy shipping channel -- Gordie Howe International Bridge.
Cable-stayed bridge with no piers in the water, 2,900 foot main span, minimizing environmental impact, eliminating the risk of ship collisions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjTzPjjK/Gordie-Howe-Bridge.jpg)
You do realize that this would be impossible with the new Key Bridge? Ergo, very strong dolphin protection is a must. If this were 1980 when the Sunshine Skyway bridge went down, I'm betting that you would've also argued in favor of a tunnel across Tampa Bay, given how you always say the same is needed here as well.
Why is this impossible? What is impossible? What evidence does anyone have that "dolphins" will stop a 100,000+ ton ship? When has it been tested to see if it would work in the real world?
They did consider a tunnel in the 1980s for I-275. They ran a full NEPA EIS where they examined a range of alternatives.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2025, 10:54:24 PMThis whole thread got all things boring once Beltway started on about his fictional tunnel ideas.
What is fictional? You can look on Google Maps Satellite View and see the causeways that were built for an outer harbor tunnel in 1970.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2025, 11:05:40 PMSeems like more times than not with a few exceptions, Any new proposal for a tunnel in this country is fictional.
Far from it -- look at the other end of Chesapeake Bay. Three tunnels under construction and three are proposed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2025, 11:05:40 PMSeems like more times than not with a few exceptions, Any new proposal for a tunnel in this country is fictional.
I wouldn't take much that has happened in the last couple pages of this thread seriously. Beltway is trying to make it all about him and apparently stays up to the middle of the night pondering how to ruin it further.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2025, 11:31:37 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2025, 11:05:40 PMSeems like more times than not with a few exceptions, Any new proposal for a tunnel in this country is fictional.
I wouldn't take much that has happened in the last couple pages of this thread seriously. Beltway is trying to make it all about him and apparently stays up to the middle of the night pondering how to ruin it further.
And just to be clear I'm not advocating for a tunnel on this particular project. Personally I actually like Bridges because you can see over them and they're scenic. But I don't know enough about this case to know the viability of a tunnel or why it would be better than a bridge.
I wouldn't go with a tunnel there at all, just another bridge but with more horizontal clearance, where the main piers/towers are further outside of the shipping channel. Like in more shallow water. HAZMATs need a better route than a trip through downtown or the western side of the beltway.
Bridge protection devices:
- Lots of pool noodles
- Bridge-sized arm floaties
- Wacky inflatable sock things in front of each tower
- Sirens (the mythical ones) when sailors venture off course
Aren't vessels entering or leaving Port supposed to be piloted by a certified individual working for the Port Authority and not the ship itself?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2025, 12:12:14 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2025, 11:31:37 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2025, 11:05:40 PMSeems like more times than not with a few exceptions, Any new proposal for a tunnel in this country is fictional.
I wouldn't take much that has happened in the last couple pages of this thread seriously. Beltway is trying to make it all about him and apparently stays up to the middle of the night pondering how to ruin it further.
And just to be clear I'm not advocating for a tunnel on this particular project. Personally I actually like Bridges because you can see over them and they're scenic. But I don't know enough about this case to know the viability of a tunnel or why it would be better than a bridge.
I seem to recall reading that back in the 1970s, a tunnel was deemed too expensive. If that was true 50 years ago, I'm sure it would be even more the case today. The Fort McHenry Tunnel was built as a tunnel in spite of the expense because of the negative impact on the historic site of a bridge towering over the fort.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 30, 2025, 09:55:39 AMAren't vessels entering or leaving Port supposed to be piloted by a certified individual working for the Port Authority and not the ship itself?
It was. Two harbor pilots were on board at the time of the collision.
Quote from: kphoger on July 30, 2025, 10:11:29 AMQuote from: roadman65 on July 30, 2025, 09:55:39 AMAren't vessels entering or leaving Port supposed to be piloted by a certified individual working for the Port Authority and not the ship itself?
It was. Two harbor pilots were on board at the time of the collision.
My understanding is the pilots board/disembark south of the Bay Bridge and advise the crew in/out of the port from there (which is why you'll frequently see several ships on anchor to the south while crossing the Bay Bridge eastbound).
Of the two pilots on board, one was in command while the other was a trainee - IIRC, after the power loss the pilot was issuing steering/anchor commands in attempt to avoid allision (a new word I learned as a result of this), and radioed in the mayday to MDTA which gave enough time to stop traffic but not enough time to clear the work crew.
I'm not saying that a skilled crew of Port pilots could have prevented the ordeal. Just wondering if that particular harbor is the same as many smaller port facilities.
I am though surprised that the entire Upper Chesapeake Bay above the Bay Bridge is part of the local pilot area as well.
Wondering now if Down Bay at the Hampton Roads if another Pilot has to board again to cross through Chesapeake Channel of that Harbor?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 30, 2025, 09:55:39 AMAren't vessels entering or leaving Port supposed to be piloted by a certified individual working for the Port Authority and not the ship itself?
Vessels entering or leaving the Port of Baltimore must be piloted by a state-licensed pilot, not by the ship's own crew. This requirement is codified under Maryland law and enforced by the Maryland State Board of Pilots, which oversees the licensing and regulation of pilots operating in the state's navigable waters.
Inbound vessels are met at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay by a certified pilot who boards the ship and takes command for the transit to Baltimore.
Pilots are licensed by the State of Maryland and must complete a rigorous five-year apprenticeship, including simulator training, academic study, and hundreds of supervised transits.
Local expertise is critical — pilots must be intimately familiar with the Bay's depths, currents, tides, and hazards. Some channels have as little as three feet of clearance between the ship's keel and the Bay floor.
Docking pilots take over near the Key Bridge to guide the vessel into its berth.
This system ensures safe navigation through one of the most complex and environmentally sensitive waterways on the East Coast. The Port of Baltimore handles massive cargo volumes, and the stakes — both economic and ecological — are high.
Of course the system failed miserably and catastrophically in March 2024, and the Maryland state government holds part of the blame.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2025, 10:04:25 AMI seem to recall reading that back in the 1970s, a tunnel was deemed too expensive. If that was true 50 years ago, I'm sure it would be even more the case today. The Fort McHenry Tunnel was built as a tunnel in spite of the expense because of the negative impact on the historic site of a bridge towering over the fort.
The tunnel was designed to contract advertisement in 1970, about $65 million although the exact number was not publicized. The bridge was then estimated to cost $50 million.
We can't really blame them for not having crystal ball, but the tunnel would be in service now and they wouldn't have the problem they have, with at least $1.5 billion required to build a replacement crossing.
The 5,738-foot-long Thimble Shoal Channel Tunnel crosses the southerly channel used by Hampton Roads ship traffic.
The CBBT Parallel Thimble Shoal Channel Tunnel Project is under construction and costs $755 million for a 2-lane tunnel.
I think it is reasonable to make a preliminary estimate for a twin-tube 6,200 foot Outer Harbor Tunnel, with two lanes in each tube, at $1.5 to $1.6 billion.
Keep in mind that the causeway land approaches were built in 1970, so only the tunnel was not built.
HRBT Expansion is a single $3.8 billion master contract, but that is for 9 miles of I-64 8-lane widening and 22 bridges. Four of those bridges are replacement trestles on the bridge-tunnel itself, and two of those bridges are widening the Willoughby Bay Bridges. So six of the bridges are large.
They don't have a detailed breakdown on their website, but the best I can determine is $1.9 billion for the two new 7,900 foot long 2-lane tunnels. That is 28% longer than the Outer Harbor Tunnel.
So a 6,200 foot long 4-lane tunnel would probably cost less that a 2.4 mile long high level bridge.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2025, 11:09:35 PMOf course the system failed miserably and catastrophically in March 2024, and the Maryland state government holds part of the blame.
How is the harbor pilot at fault for the power failure on the ship?
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2025, 12:27:37 PMHow is the harbor pilot at fault for the power failure on the ship?
As the band Chumbawamba put it...
Quote from: ChumbawambaBelieve every half-whispered, half-remembered lie,
Where truth is a luxury they can't afford to buy.
Scapegoat, looking for a scapegoat.
There's always someone else for you to blame.
Quote from: kphoger on July 31, 2025, 12:38:27 PMQuote from: vdeane on July 31, 2025, 12:27:37 PMHow is the harbor pilot at fault for the power failure on the ship?
As the band Chumbawamba put it...
Quote from: ChumbawambaBelieve every half-whispered, half-remembered lie,
Where truth is a luxury they can't afford to buy.
Scapegoat, looking for a scapegoat.
There's always someone else for you to blame.
If only the harbor pilot equipped the ship with pool noodles.
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2025, 12:27:37 PMQuote from: Beltway on July 30, 2025, 11:09:35 PMOf course the system failed miserably and catastrophically in March 2024, and the Maryland state government holds part of the blame.
How is the harbor pilot at fault for the power failure on the ship?
Maryland was responsible for having inspections for seaworthiness. You can't let a 100,000+ ton vessel like that out with no port controls.
But here's the institutional failure: Maryland had no authority to inspect the vessel's seaworthiness, and that's the crux of the problem.
Maryland's own Port Commission minutes from March 2024 show no mention of vessel inspection protocols or risk mitigation strategies for megaships. The state's role is limited to pilotage regulation, port logistics, and infrastructure management — not vessel integrity.
The vessel should never have left port in that condition. But Maryland didn't have the tools, authority, or systems in place to stop it. That's not just a loophole — it's a gaping hole in maritime state governance.
Quote from: Beltway on July 31, 2025, 04:05:47 PMMaryland was responsible for having inspections for seaworthiness
Maryland had no authority to inspect the vessel's seaworthiness
wut
Quote from: kphoger on July 31, 2025, 04:22:41 PMQuote from: Beltway on July 31, 2025, 04:05:47 PMMaryland was responsible for having inspections for seaworthiness
Maryland had no authority to inspect the vessel's seaworthiness
wut
You just don't get it do you. I'll say it one more time to try to help you and after that you're on your own, pal. Seaworthiness!
If they had no authority, then how were they responsible?
Quote from: kphoger on July 31, 2025, 05:36:55 PMIf they had no authority, then how were they responsible?
They should have had the authority to seek authority and therefore are by proxy are responsible. I think that is what Beltway is trying to say at least?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2025, 05:44:50 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 31, 2025, 05:36:55 PMIf they had no authority, then how were they responsible?
They should have had the authority to seek authority and therefore are by proxy are responsible. I think that is what Beltway is trying to say at least?
Given how Beltway is responding, do not assume consistency.
Quote from: kphoger on July 31, 2025, 05:36:55 PMIf they had no authority, then how were they responsible?
Because the state government and the general assembly didn't grant them sufficient authority.
I said "the Maryland state government holds part of the blame." Which means what it says -- between the legislature and the executive branch agencies they failed to have proper systems in place, to protect both the vessel and whatever it might run into.
It is like if the USAF accidentally dropped an atom bomb on a populated area in the U.S. and it blew up. Some things are so critical that you -cannot- make a mistake.
On average, the Port of Baltimore sees about 2 to 4 gasoline tanker ship arrivals per day, and they carry between 20,000 and 60,000 tons of gasoline depending on the load, and all their docks are upstream of the Key Bridge. If one crashed into the bridge and/or dolphins and the hull tore open and the cargo caught fire it would be a very bad day.
Secondary consequences of a major strike
+ Hazardous material spill: A ruptured tanker or container ship could release flammable, toxic, or reactive cargo directly into the channel, creating both environmental disaster and navigational closure.
+ Fire and thermal load: A prolonged blaze aboard ship or ignited cargo — especially under a cable-stayed span with polymer sheathings and tensioned steel — could compromise structural integrity through heat-induced deformation or cable creep. This could cause the suspended spans to collapse even though not impact damaged.
+ Bridge closure: Even non-collapse damage could mean months of forensic inspection, partial reconstruction at hundreds of millions of dollars, and economic disruption, not to mention rerouting 32,000 vehicles daily.
Limitations of pier protection
+ Deceleration assumption: The idea that a vessel at 10 knots and ~200,000 tons can be safely "caught" by sacrificial concrete or steel dolphins is a fiction born of modeling — not real-world validation.
+ Shock transfer: Impact forces don't just stop at the barrier — they travel into the foundations, into the superstructure, and sometimes into the vessel itself, creating debris fields and multi-system failures.
+ No fire suppression integration: Unlike tunnels, these systems typically have no integrated fire containment, leaving responders to deal with open, unshielded conflagration next to steel infrastructure.
The false promise of "deflection" -- What's being sold as protection is, in reality, impact redirection with untested collateral. It's akin to installing crash barriers on a runway and assuming that'll prevent an aircraft from causing damage during a failed takeoff — without factoring in fuel, fire, or kinetic fallout.
The idea that only Dali-scale ships pose a threat is a convenient fiction. A 50,000-ton vessel moving at 15 knots — even if drawing just 25 feet — still carries enough kinetic energy to inflict catastrophic damage on a bridge pier not designed for modern impact loads.
The physics of a "non-Dali" Strike
+ Kinetic Energy (KE) scales with mass × velocity², meaning velocity is the real multiplier. A ship going nearly twice as fast as the Dali has roughly 4× the impact energy, even if it's half the mass.
+ A Panamax bulk carrier, at 50,000–60,000 DWT and 25-foot draft, is common in U.S. ports and perfectly capable of traveling at or above 14–15 knots in fairway conditions.
+ Unlike container ships with elevated bridge visibility, many bulkers have more challenging sightlines and slower rudder response — amplifying collision risk during navigational error or control loss.
Designing protection systems around "worst-case" Dali-scale impacts ignores the reality of higher-speed, medium-mass vessels, which can deliver destructive force with greater probability.
Quote from: Rothman on July 31, 2025, 07:24:55 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2025, 05:44:50 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 31, 2025, 05:36:55 PMIf they had no authority, then how were they responsible?
They should have had the authority to seek authority and therefore are by proxy are responsible. I think that is what Beltway is trying to say at least?
Given how Beltway is responding, do not assume consistency.
Oh no, he's been consistently been posted weird nonsense. I just can't make sense of it and I don't seem to be alone on that.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2025, 09:44:40 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 31, 2025, 07:24:55 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2025, 05:44:50 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 31, 2025, 05:36:55 PMIf they had no authority, then how were they responsible?
They should have had the authority to seek authority and therefore are by proxy are responsible. I think that is what Beltway is trying to say at least?
Given how Beltway is responding, do not assume consistency.
Oh no, he's been consistently been posted weird nonsense. I just can't make sense of it and I don't seem to be alone on that.
We're gonna need more pool noodles...
Quote from: PColumbus73 on August 01, 2025, 08:52:47 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2025, 09:44:40 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 31, 2025, 07:24:55 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2025, 05:44:50 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 31, 2025, 05:36:55 PMIf they had no authority, then how were they responsible?
They should have had the authority to seek authority and therefore are by proxy are responsible. I think that is what Beltway is trying to say at least?
Given how Beltway is responding, do not assume consistency.
Oh no, he's been consistently been posted weird nonsense. I just can't make sense of it and I don't seem to be alone on that.
We're gonna need more pool noodles...
I mean hey, pool noodles are miniature tunnels if you really think about it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2025, 09:12:31 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on August 01, 2025, 08:52:47 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2025, 09:44:40 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 31, 2025, 07:24:55 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2025, 05:44:50 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 31, 2025, 05:36:55 PMIf they had no authority, then how were they responsible?
They should have had the authority to seek authority and therefore are by proxy are responsible. I think that is what Beltway is trying to say at least?
Given how Beltway is responding, do not assume consistency.
Oh no, he's been consistently been posted weird nonsense. I just can't make sense of it and I don't seem to be alone on that.
We're gonna need more pool noodles...
I mean hey, pool noodles are miniature tunnels if you really think about it.
*mind blown*
Quote from: Beltway on July 31, 2025, 04:05:47 PMMaryland was responsible for having inspections for seaworthiness
Maryland had no authority to inspect the vessel's seaworthiness
Quote from: Beltway on July 31, 2025, 09:23:28 PMIt is like if the USAF accidentally dropped an atom bomb on a populated area in the U.S. and it blew up.
No, it isn't like that. By your analogy, the USAF doesn't have the authority to inspect their own airplanes.
Quote from: kphoger on August 01, 2025, 10:05:25 AMQuote from: Beltway on July 31, 2025, 04:05:47 PMMaryland was responsible for having inspections for seaworthiness
Maryland had no authority to inspect the vessel's seaworthiness
Quote from: Beltway on July 31, 2025, 09:23:28 PMIt is like if the USAF accidentally dropped an atom bomb on a populated area in the U.S. and it blew up.
No, it isn't like that. By your analogy, the USAF doesn't have the authority to inspect their own airplanes.
You can be logically and sociologically and morally responsible for something yet not be given sufficient legal authority to manage it properly; neither any controls in place to make sure you are managing it properly.
Highway construction inspector joke (from my time thereof):
Question: How do you know when the nuclear density gauge is malfunctioning?
Answer: When you see a blinding flash of light and then a mushroom cloud.
. . . . . . . . . .
The device being referred to:
Troxler Model 3440 Nuclear Moisture/Density Gauge
This instrument uses a Cesium-137 source to measure soil and asphalt density, and an Americium-241/Beryllium source to assess moisture content. It operates in either direct transmission or backscatter mode, depending on the depth and material being tested.
Quote from: Beltway on August 01, 2025, 11:48:02 AMlogically and sociologically and morally
Ah, so now we've gotten to the truth of the matter, which is that the statements below are
just, like, your opinion, man.Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2025, 11:09:35 PMthe Maryland state government holds part of the blame
Quote from: Beltway on July 31, 2025, 04:05:47 PMMaryland was responsible for having inspections for seaworthiness
That is to say, legally, the Maryland state government neither holds part of the blame nor was responsible for having inspections for seaworthiness.
Since we are talking about nukes, can we just nuke this thread from orbit? I feel it is the only way to be sure.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2025, 01:33:55 PMSince we are talking about nukes, can we just nuke this thread from orbit? I feel it is the only way to be sure.
The Mods don't have the authority to nuke this thread, but they are responsible for not nuking the thread.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on August 01, 2025, 02:53:32 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2025, 01:33:55 PMSince we are talking about nukes, can we just nuke this thread from orbit? I feel it is the only way to be sure.
The Mods don't have the authority to nuke this thread, but they are responsible for not nuking the thread.
This operation is under commenter jurisdiction, and kphoger is next in chain of command.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on August 01, 2025, 02:53:32 PMThe Mods don't have the authority to nuke this thread, but they are responsible for not nuking the thread.
It is like if Scott Nazelrod accidentally dropped an F bomb in a populated Wal-Mart parking lot in the U.S. and a little old nun blew up at him for it.
Quote from: kphoger on August 01, 2025, 01:15:24 PMQuote from: Beltway on August 01, 2025, 11:48:02 AMlogically and sociologically and morally
Ah, so now we've gotten to the truth of the matter, which is that the statements below are just, like, your opinion, man.
??? Everything we post here is just our opinion.
QuoteQuote from: Beltway on July 30, 2025, 11:09:35 PMthe Maryland state government holds part of the blame
Quote from: Beltway on July 31, 2025, 04:05:47 PMMaryland was responsible for having inspections for seaworthiness
That is to say, legally, the Maryland state government neither holds part of the blame nor was responsible for having inspections for seaworthiness.
The claim that Maryland's state government holds no legal responsibility for vessel seaworthiness, as in the Dali ship incident, sidesteps a broader truth: you can be logically, sociologically, and morally accountable for outcomes without sufficient legal authority or controls to manage them effectively.
Maryland's Port of Baltimore, under state oversight, facilitates maritime traffic but lacks direct authority over ship inspections, which falls to the U.S. Coast Guard. Yet, the state's failure to enforce robust port safety protocols or advocate for stricter federal coordination shares blame.
Sociologically, Maryland's economic reliance on the port demands proactive risk management. Morally, neglecting infrastructure like the Francis Scott Key Bridge's protections and vulnerabilities endangers lives.
Without legal mandates or oversight mechanisms, Maryland's inaction is a bureaucratic cop-out, leaving a gap where accountability drowns in a sea of jurisdictional upchuck.
The Dali's documented issues before the crash highlight systemic failures, where Maryland's passive stance amplifies the disaster's impact.
So...Maryland did and did not have the authority to nuke the Dali so they could morally assess its moisture content, is what I'm getting out of this thread.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 01, 2025, 10:48:08 PMSo...Maryland did and did not have the authority to nuke the Dali so they could morally assess its moisture content, is what I'm getting out of this thread.
Yes
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 01, 2025, 10:48:08 PMSo...Maryland did and did not have the authority to nuke the Dali so they could morally assess its moisture content, is what I'm getting out of this thread.
I'd suggest a new thread, but the Troxler 3440's legal authority is still under review by three agencies and a wandering ethics committee.
Quote from: Beltway on August 01, 2025, 10:36:54 PMMaryland's Port of Baltimore, under state oversight, facilitates maritime traffic but lacks direct authority over ship inspections, which falls to the U.S. Coast Guard. Yet, the state's failure to enforce robust port safety protocols or advocate for stricter federal coordination shares blame.
Ah, so it's Maryland's fault because they didn't tell the USCG to do their job better.
Quote from: kphoger on August 02, 2025, 09:31:15 AMQuote from: Beltway on August 01, 2025, 10:36:54 PMMaryland's Port of Baltimore, under state oversight, facilitates maritime traffic but lacks direct authority over ship inspections, which falls to the U.S. Coast Guard. Yet, the state's failure to enforce robust port safety protocols or advocate for stricter federal coordination shares blame.
Ah, so it's Maryland's fault because they didn't tell the USCG to do their job better.
Ah, I see. Scrolled back and I see a pattern of creative snipping and one-liners when you see something that you disagree with, there are at least a dozen posts just going back a few pages.
A guy did that on the Usenet misc.transport.road newsgroup back in the day. It was all but impossible to debate with him; you post a long reply and he came back with more creative snipping and one-liners. And so on. And so on.
Like I said in the recent I-64 GAP Widening discussion, with a poster that was trying stir up a pointless argument, sometimes it is better for everyone to just ignore that poster.
I'm really just wondering why the agency that actually has the authority to do seaworthiness inspections isn't receiving your ire, but rather an agency that doesn't.
... My arguments are always flawless and well constructed, it's you who are wrong...
Are we all forgetting about the cost of paying dolphins to guard the bridge?
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2025, 04:38:10 PMAre we all forgetting about the cost of paying dolphins to guard the bridge?
The advantage of employing dolphins is that they cannot unionize (except in NYC).
Quote from: Beltway on August 01, 2025, 10:36:54 PMQuote from: kphoger on August 01, 2025, 01:15:24 PMQuote from: Beltway on August 01, 2025, 11:48:02 AMlogically and sociologically and morally
Ah, so now we've gotten to the truth of the matter, which is that the statements below are just, like, your opinion, man.
??? Everything we post here is just our opinion.
QuoteQuote from: Beltway on July 30, 2025, 11:09:35 PMthe Maryland state government holds part of the blame
Quote from: Beltway on July 31, 2025, 04:05:47 PMseaworthiness
seaworthiness.
seaworthiness,
Yep
Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
(Robert Coté, 2002)
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp
I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".
Quote from: Beltway on August 02, 2025, 03:37:38 PMA guy did that on the Usenet misc.transport.road newsgroup back in the day.
Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the Key Bridge cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we? Oh, yeah. The important thing was a guy on misc.transport.road was creatively snipping one-liners, which was the style at the time.
Oh, uh, I mean, uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef.
Don't @ me. Seriously.
The issue isn't that Maryland government failed to tell the Coast Guard what to do — it's that no one acted on clear red flags that should've stopped the ship from moving at all.
The Dali experienced multiple power failures before departure. Allowing a vessel with unresolved electrical faults to navigate near critical infrastructure was a clear risk.
DOJ alleges the ship's systems were configured in a way that prevented quick recovery of propulsion and steering after a power outage — a cascading failure waiting to happen.
The Coast Guard's Certificate of Inspection may not have reflected the ship's actual condition. If Maryland or port authorities had flagged the vessel's issues, they could have requested a port state control inspection or delayed departure.
The Port of Baltimore had the authority to hold the vessel at the dock if it posed a safety risk to infrastructure or navigation.
The Key Bridge was known to be structurally vulnerable to vessel strikes. Allowing a compromised ship to pass beneath it — especially at night — was a high-stakes gamble.
No tug escort was required, despite the ship's size and the narrow channel. That's a procedural oversight that could've mitigated the risk.
The Coast Guard doesn't operate in a vacuum. It relies on local intelligence, including reports from state agencies, pilots, and port staff.
If Maryland had flagged the Dali's condition, the Coast Guard could have acted. The absence of such a warning reflects a breakdown in local vigilance, not a lack of jurisdiction.
Maryland didn't need to "tell the Coast Guard to do their job better." But they did have a duty to monitor, report, and mitigate risks — especially with a bridge that had no margin for error.
The Dali had documented electrical problems before leaving port. That's now part of federal investigations. With power failures already occurring dockside, allowing a vessel of that scale to sail — especially without a tug escort — was reckless oversight. MPA rolled the dice and they got snake eyes -- the casino won and MPA lost.
Maryland port authorities didn't need to diagnose the faults themselves. But they absolutely had the ability — and the responsibility — to delay departure, request a Port State Control inspection, or escalate concerns to the Coast Guard. The state isn't just a spectator here.
The Coast Guard depends on local agencies to raise alarms when something's off. If no one flagged the Dali, it wasn't a federal breakdown — it was a failure in basic vigilance.
Maryland Port Administration (MPA) didn't cause the power failure aboard the Dali, but they were part of a system that let a compromised vessel proceed. When you're managing terminal operations, you're not just coordinating ship movements — you're gatekeeping risk. The moment repeated electrical faults occurred, MPA had options: delay departure, escalate to the Coast Guard, demand tug support. None were used.
So yes — MPA rolled the dice on a ship limping out of port with questionable reliability. And instead of a routine crossing, they got a collapsed bridge, paralyzed supply chains, and a national infrastructure failure.
Quote from: Beltway on August 03, 2025, 08:25:22 AMSo yes — MPA rolled the dice on a ship limping out of port with questionable reliability. And instead of a routine crossing, they got a... paralyzed supply chains...
List what has been paralyzed.
Inconvenienced? Fo Sho. But trucks can still move around.
Want to permanently inconvenience those supply chains? Build a tunnel.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2025, 09:34:04 AMQuote from: Beltway on August 03, 2025, 08:25:22 AMSo yes — MPA rolled the dice on a ship limping out of port with questionable reliability. And instead of a routine crossing, they got a... paralyzed supply chains...
List what has been paralyzed.
Inconvenienced? Fo Sho. But trucks can still move around.
Want to permanently inconvenience those supply chains? Build a tunnel.
Really?
Norfolk/Hampton Roads has permanently inconvenienced supply chains?
Modern era tunnels are designed to allow hazardous cargos. Many world ports don't allow bridges across shipping channels and there needs to be a way to transport those highway cargoes.
The VA I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel (MMMBT) was designed with the clearances and safety systems so that nearly all hazardous materials can use it, including RVs with standard propane tanks, including gasoline tanker trucks. That was opened in 1992.
An outer harbor tunnel could likewise be designed with the clearances and safety systems to handle nearly all hazardous materials.
Notice – all this talk about HAZMAT that constantly comes up on various forums that discuss this bridge. The best data I can find is that the AADT was about 32,000 with 10% large trucks with about 10% of the shipments being material that MDTA won't allow thru the tunnels.
So about 300 to 350 shipments per day. To me that is very little justification for spending $2 billion to avoid tunnels; granted there were the other 31,000 vehicles. But the two Interstate highway cross-harbor tunnels carry the 225,000 AADT now and have a total of 12 lanes.
That is about the same AADT as the I-495 American Legion Bridge which has 8 thru lanes. The Key Bridge had 1/7 of that traffic and Maryland is doing nothing to expand the ALB and the rest of I-495 between VA and I-270 to the VA 12-lane cross-section (4-2-2-4) with HOT lanes.
How about creative thinking? Like right now, allowing HAZMAT shipments say between 1:00 am and 5:00 am, with escort vehicles. Seems like creative thinking ends as you sail north across the VA/MD border on Chesapeake Bay.
I could and may take the time to list all the major ports that have no bridge between the deep water port and the ocean. A few --
Hamburg (tunnel), Copenhagen (tunnel between city and entire Baltic Sea, no crossings between the city and the ocean), Rotterdam (tunnel), Tokyo (bridge-tunnel) and Osaka immediately come to mind.
The Tokyo Bay Aqua-Line (東京湾アクアライン) is a 8.9 mile long bridge-tunnel and the tunnel is 5.8 miles long. It crosses Tokyo Bay between the ocean and the deep water ports in the upper bay.
Tokyo has 9 short highway underwater tunnels and virtually all of the inner harbor and river docks are accessible without passing under a bridge.
None of those latter ports have any navy justifications to speak of -- and they don't have permanently inconvenienced supply chains.
The only thing collapsing in this thread is basic paragraph structure.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 03, 2025, 12:53:00 PMThe only thing collapsing in this thread is basic paragraph structure.
I don't know. The amount of misinformation is pretty staggering as well.
Quote from: Beltway on August 03, 2025, 08:25:22 AMThe issue isn't that ...
Thank you. That was very well explained, I think I now understand your position better, and your post has served to convince me of it more than I had been.