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

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

How many people active in this thread aren't long tenured government employees?  I think almost everyone is...

[PColumbus73]

How 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

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[kphoger]

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?

[Beltway]

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?

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[Beltway]

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?

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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?

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. 

[roadman65]

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.

[kphoger]

I saw someplace that private money was raised as well.

MDTA should start a GoFundMe for the bridge.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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. 

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

[Scott5114]

Excerpt 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.

[Beltway]

Excerpt 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.

[Beltway]

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.

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!

[Max Rockatansky]

Excerpt 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. 

[WillWeaverRVA]

Hm, this thread really took off all of a sudden. I wonder...oh dear lord no

[Max Rockatansky]

Hm, this thread really took off all of a sudden. I wonder...oh dear lord no

The sentiment has been shared by others.

[Beltway]

It 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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.