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

[Plutonic Panda]

The new bridge should definitely be built with more lanes.

[roadman65]

The 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.

[Rothman]

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)

[epzik8]

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.

Yep, I was interested to learn this was what was done with the Tydings Bridge early on.

[Plutonic Panda]

The 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.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ShYsPJDk1ehfYVG87
June 2024, after the bridge collapse, and the Key Bridge is still a control city.

[Rothman]

https://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?

[PColumbus73]

https://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.

[epzik8]

https://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.

[kalvado]

https://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.

[PColumbus73]

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.

[Rothman]

https://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.

[jeffandnicole]

https://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.

[kalvado]

https://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.

[PColumbus73]

https://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.

[kalvado]

https://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
?

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Cbo3CiWH5erNAE6b6
Hope they changed this sign. With the bridge out, I-695 don't go to Essex from here.

[WillWeaverRVA]

https://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.

[PColumbus73]

https://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.

[kalvado]

https://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...

[jdbx]

https://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.

[jeffandnicole]

https://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.

[PColumbus73]

USDOJ reaches settlement with operator

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.

[wanderer2575]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.