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

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[PColumbus73]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[PColumbus73]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

Tightening 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.

I'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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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!! :-)

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.

Which doesn't mean that one won't wind up in the waters and on the riverbed tomorrow.

[PColumbus73]

But implementing standards that make certain crossings, like the Chesapeake or San Francisco Bay, impossible to build is an unrealistic ask.

[Beltway]

But 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.

[vdeane]

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.

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!! :-)

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.

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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. 

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.

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." 

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.

I 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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Beltway]

" 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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

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?

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.

That 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?

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.

There isn't anything being built -- yet.

Discussing the selection of a safe and secure design is exactly on topic.

[kphoger]

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.

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.

Forgive my ignorance, but those two seem to contradict each other.  Can you please explain?

[Beltway]

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.

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.

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.

[vdeane]

MDTA is treating this like an emergency replacement of a collapsed bridge

That's because it is.

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.

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.

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?

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.

That 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?

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.

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. 

[Henry]

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.

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.