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

[PColumbus73]

I wasn't the one who revived this thread with fictional tunnel ideas at 12:39 AM.  The previous reply was on August 3rd.  I'm perfectly content with letting the thread die either naturally or via figurative catastrophic collapse. 

There is nothing "fictional" about building a tunnel here given that it was the original design with this crossing and the land approaches were built and the tunnel was designed and bids were advertised and opened. Plus the fact that this harbor has two other tunnels and it is not without precedent. Plus the fact that nothing new has been built yet.

This ship explosion and fire near the bridge just reinforces the need to consider all forms of risk that are involved.

I've heard of projection -- and at this point I'm seeing you demonstrate it with every one your posts, with your petty need to have the last word until everyone says they agree with you.  You've clearly made your point, umpteen times.  Let it go, willya?

Not until we all join in protest and roll around the banks of the Patapsco River until we look like bog monsters, but not before a pilgrimage to Hampton Roads to marvel at the glory of the tunnels.

[Beltway]

There is nothing "fictional" about building a tunnel here given that it was the original design with this crossing and the land approaches were built and the tunnel was designed and bids were advertised and opened. Plus the fact that this harbor has two other tunnels and it is not without precedent. Plus the fact that nothing new has been built yet.
This ship explosion and fire near the bridge just reinforces the need to consider all forms of risk that are involved.

I've heard of projection -- and at this point I'm seeing you demonstrate it with every one your posts, with your petty need to have the last word until everyone says they agree with you.  You've clearly made your point, umpteen times.  Let it go, willya?

This ship explosion and fire near the bridge site is new news about the project.

Rather than whining and complaining about what I post, how about explaining in detail where my opinions are incorrect?

There are at least 5 posters here who have done nothing but make throwaway comments about my posts.

I usually ignore them but sometimes don't -- I need to be more disciplined because they just clog up the thread with nonsense -- and replying to them just feeds their energy.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm just amused that you think you're somehow coming from a position of credibility in this thread.

[roadman65]

I think Taps needs to be played here and give this thread a burial.  The bridge collapse is ancient history and the replacement talk can merit its own thread.

[vdeane]

Rather than whining and complaining about what I post, how about explaining in detail where my opinions are incorrect?

We have.  Repeatedly.  We don't feel like doing so again and again and again, and are quite frankly sick and tired of you acting like a broken record.  Give it a rest.  Maryland is continuing to move forward with the replacement bridge, and no amount of posting from you on the internet is going to change that.  At this point, you're shilling for a tunnel so much that I'm convinced you must have some financial stake in the idea.

[Beltway]

Rather than whining and complaining about what I post, how about explaining in detail where my opinions are incorrect?

We have.  Repeatedly.

Where are they?

I put up a simple update post about the ship explosion and conflagration near the bridge. That is relevant to what will be built there.

We don't feel like doing so again and again and again, and are quite frankly sick and tired of you acting like a broken record.  Give it a rest.  Maryland is continuing to move forward with the replacement bridge, and no amount of posting from you on the internet is going to change that.  At this point, you're shilling for a tunnel so much that I'm convinced you must have some financial stake in the idea.

That response is emotionally charged, but it's also a classic example of deflection and projection -- especially if my advocacy for a tunnel or longer bridge main span is grounded in engineering, safety, economic, environmental and long-term planning concerns.

What's actually being said
+ "Broken record":  This implies repetition, but repetition is often necessary when institutional decisions lack transparency or public engagement.
+ "Give it a rest":  A rhetorical shutdown, not a substantive rebuttal.
+ "Maryland is moving forward":  True, but that doesn't invalidate public discourse. The Key Bridge rebuild is still in pre-construction phases, and design decisions are being shaped now.
+ "You must have a financial stake":  That's an ad hominem attacking motive instead of engaging the argument.

I understand the feedback, but repeating concerns isn't obstruction — it's accountability. Maryland's rebuild is still in motion, and tunnel alternatives and long main span alternatives deserve serious consideration, especially given long-term resilience and cost. I have no financial stake -- just a civic one. If the current bridge scheme is truly the best option, it should withstand scrutiny. If not, we owe it to future generations to ask hard questions now.

[Max Rockatansky]

What's the angle with trying psychoanalyze the other users using AI script? 

Let's turn this around towards you.  Why are you up in the middle of the night reviving dead threads?  Are you feeling a lack of validation that is causing insomnia?  Perhaps some healthy social interaction with friends and loved ones outside the road hobby is in order?

[Scott5114]

Going forward, posts in this thread need to be about what is actually being considered by the state of Maryland for building the replacement bridge. Couldas, wouldas, and shouldas (i.e. "advocating") will be removed, either to the Fictional Highways forum, or the circular file. (There is no point in "advocating" here—nobody from MDTA is on the forum.)

Posts that appear to be a copy-paste of AI/LLM output will be removed—if forum members need or want that, they can ask the robot for an incorrect answer themselves.

[Rothman]

I wasn't the one who revived this thread with fictional tunnel ideas at 12:39 AM.  The previous reply was on August 3rd.  I'm perfectly content with letting the thread die either naturally or via figurative catastrophic collapse. 

There is nothing "fictional" about building a tunnel here given that it was the original design with this crossing and the land approaches were built and the tunnel was designed and bids were advertised and opened. Plus the fact that this harbor has two other tunnels and it is not without precedent. Plus the fact that nothing new has been built yet.

This ship explosion and fire near the bridge just reinforces the need to consider all forms of risk that are involved.

It is fictional, since the project is progressive design-build (i.e., one contractor from preliminary design through construction, as opposed to just design-build) and pre-construction has already started.  The bridge alternative doesn't appear to be open for further discussion.  Permit applications have been submitted based upon the intended alternative.

https://www.keybridgerebuild.com/

[Beltway]

This ship explosion and fire near the bridge just reinforces the need to consider all forms of risk that are involved.

It is fictional, since the project is progressive design-build (i.e., one contractor from preliminary design through construction, as opposed to just design-build) and pre-construction has already started.  The bridge alternative doesn't appear to be open for further discussion.  Permit applications have been submitted based upon the intended alternative.

Do you know the history of the I-266 Three Sisters Bridge?