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

[Beltway]

Why? They were built before the 1991 AASHTO vulnerability guidelines. They have no current vessel impact risk calculation using modern standards. The NTSB emphasized that inclusion on the list doesn't mean imminent collapse -- but it does mean unknown risk.

So because we don't know if they're vulnerable or not, that means they definitely are vulnerable. Gotcha.

It means what it says -- they were listed by the NTSB among 68 U.S. bridges requiring a vulnerability assessment for ship strike collapse risk.  I think you could say that means they are vulnerable.

No, you can't.  Not until an assessment concludes such.

" We also urge the owners of the 68 identified bridges to calculate whether
the probability of a bridge collapse from a vessel collision is above the acceptable
risk threshold established by AASHTO. If so, we urge them to develop and implement
a risk reduction plan that includes input from the interdisciplinary team, identifies
short- and long-term strategies to reduce risk, and considers the safety of the vessels
and structures in the waterways."

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MIR2510.pdf
March 18, 2025

Appendix B: US Bridges [68] Over Navigable Waterways Frequented by
Ocean-Going Vessels with Unknown Levels of Risk of Collapse from
a Vessel Collision
. . . . .

If it is still unknown for a bridge, then why?

Getting to the Key Bridge proposal, why has this not been done before design approval?

[Rothman]

Why? They were built before the 1991 AASHTO vulnerability guidelines. They have no current vessel impact risk calculation using modern standards. The NTSB emphasized that inclusion on the list doesn't mean imminent collapse -- but it does mean unknown risk.

So because we don't know if they're vulnerable or not, that means they definitely are vulnerable. Gotcha.

It means what it says -- they were listed by the NTSB among 68 U.S. bridges requiring a vulnerability assessment for ship strike collapse risk.  I think you could say that means they are vulnerable.

No, you can't.  Not until an assessment concludes such.

" We also urge the owners of the 68 identified bridges to calculate whether
the probability of a bridge collapse from a vessel collision is above the acceptable
risk threshold established by AASHTO. If so, we urge them to develop and implement
a risk reduction plan that includes input from the interdisciplinary team, identifies
short- and long-term strategies to reduce risk, and considers the safety of the vessels
and structures in the waterways."

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MIR2510.pdf
March 18, 2025

Appendix B: US Bridges [68] Over Navigable Waterways Frequented by
Ocean-Going Vessels with Unknown Levels of Risk of Collapse from
a Vessel Collision
. . . . .

If it is still unknown for a bridge, then why?

Getting to the Key Bridge proposal, why has this not been done before design approval?

The NTSB report doesn't address the new Key Bridge proposal, only the problems with the old one.

Looks like the new design does include measures to mitigate collision risk, so the assertion that design approval that it ignored it altogether doesn't seem supported.

https://www.enr.com/articles/60258-new-design-for-francis-scott-key-bridge-replacement-unveiled

[Beltway]

The NTSB report doesn't address the new Key Bridge proposal, only the problems with the old one.
Looks like the new design does include measures to mitigate collision risk, so the assertion that design approval that it ignored it altogether doesn't seem supported.
https://www.enr.com/articles/60258-new-design-for-francis-scott-key-bridge-replacement-unveiled

"The original 1.7-mile steel bridge, which collapsed after being struck by the disabled neo-Panamax container vessel M/V Dali in the early morning hours of March 26, 2024, provided only 1,209 ft of horizontal clearance between the main spans, and 185 ft of vertical clearance above the channel. The new bridge's cable-stayed main span will exceed 3,300 ft, an increase of more than 600 ft over the original continuous truss span length."

Not sure what they are thinking there; the proposed main span is 1,600 feet.
. . . . .
"the original bridge included four large dolphins to protect the pylons supporting the central through-truss spans. Each dolphin was composed of 25-ft-diameter sheet pile filled with tremie concrete and capped with reinforced concrete. The dolphins were fitted with 17-ft-long rubber fenders at various locations. Each of the main pylons also was surrounded by a 100-x-84.5-ft crushable concrete box and timber fender system."

That looks accurate, and refutes the critics that said there were no dolphins.
. . . .

The only thing they say about protection is this, and there is no engineering detailed about what they are proposing --

"Maryland officials say that the structure also will feature the latest in pier protection technology — the absence of which on the original Key Bridge may have contributed to the structure's collapse. "

[Rothman]

The NTSB report doesn't address the new Key Bridge proposal, only the problems with the old one.
Looks like the new design does include measures to mitigate collision risk, so the assertion that design approval that it ignored it altogether doesn't seem supported.
https://www.enr.com/articles/60258-new-design-for-francis-scott-key-bridge-replacement-unveiled

"The original 1.7-mile steel bridge, which collapsed after being struck by the disabled neo-Panamax container vessel M/V Dali in the early morning hours of March 26, 2024, provided only 1,209 ft of horizontal clearance between the main spans, and 185 ft of vertical clearance above the channel. The new bridge's cable-stayed main span will exceed 3,300 ft, an increase of more than 600 ft over the original continuous truss span length."

Not sure what they are thinking there; the proposed main span is 1,600 feet.
. . . . .
"the original bridge included four large dolphins to protect the pylons supporting the central through-truss spans. Each dolphin was composed of 25-ft-diameter sheet pile filled with tremie concrete and capped with reinforced concrete. The dolphins were fitted with 17-ft-long rubber fenders at various locations. Each of the main pylons also was surrounded by a 100-x-84.5-ft crushable concrete box and timber fender system."

That looks accurate, and refutes the critics that said there were no dolphins.
. . . .

The only thing they say about protection is this, and there is no engineering detailed about what they are proposing --

"Maryland officials say that the structure also will feature the latest in pier protection technology — the absence of which on the original Key Bridge may have contributed to the structure's collapse. "

Well, it was a third-party report rather than an actual design approval document.

Nice that it softened your tone.

[Beltway]

My latest website article addition --

In response to the March 26, 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, struck by the cargo ship Dali, Congress passed the Baltimore BRIDGE Relief Act to ensure swift federal support. Section 3 of the law mandates a 100% federal share for emergency relief funds "to respond to damage caused by the cargo ship Dali." That language is precise and limited. It authorizes restoration, not reinvention.

The collapsed spans, comprising the 2,644-foot main span and three plate girder spans on the north approach (895 feet total), can be replaced for approximately $400–500 million. That is what the state is entitled to.

Maryland's push for a brand-new bridge, much higher, longer and wider, estimated at up to $5 billion, includes widened lanes, bike paths, and design upgrades far beyond the scope of emergency relief.

Under 23 U.S. Code § 125, federal emergency funds are intended to restore pre-existing functionality. Enhancements and redesigns fall outside that definition and would trigger a full NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), along with a requirement for state or local cost share.

The law doesn't authorize a visionary rebuild, it authorizes a targeted response to specific damage. Unless Congress amends the statute, the Trump administration is legally justified in capping federal funding at the cost of what was lost. It can deny enhancements as non-emergency scope, initiate NEPA review if Maryland insists on expansion, and demand state participation for anything beyond functional restoration.

This isn't bureaucratic foot-dragging, it's statutory fidelity. If Maryland wants a landmark, it must fund the delta between restoration and ambition. The federal government is obligated to restore what was destroyed, not bankroll what was never there.

The legislation surrounding the Francis Scott Key Bridge rebuild emerged in response to its collapse on March 26, 2024, after being struck by a cargo ship. Congress acted swiftly to ensure federal support for reconstruction, culminating in the Baltimore BRIDGE Relief Act.

Section 3. Federal Share for Certain Emergency Relief Projects

"Notwithstanding subsection (e)) of section 120 of title 23, United States Code, the Federal share for emergency relief funds made available under section 125 of that title to respond to damage caused by the cargo ship Dali to the Francis Scott Key Bridge located in Baltimore City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland, including that bridge and its approaches, shall be 100 percent."

The Baltimore BRIDGE Relief Act mandates 100% federal funding to "respond to damage caused by the cargo ship Dali." That's a surgical phrase -- targeted, not expansive. It covers emergency relief for the actual damage, not discretionary upgrades, aesthetic redesigns, or multimodal enhancements.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor_Proposed.html

[kphoger]

The federal government is obligated to restore what was destroyed, not bankroll what was never there.

Like, if a waitress accidentally sneezes on my plate of spaghetti as she's bringing to the table, and she says she'll run back to the kitchen right away and have them make me another one, I can't just say, Hey, go ahead and upgrade that to a porterhouse steak at no extra charge!

[The Ghostbuster]

While a tunnel may prevent another bridge collapse, it is probably for the best to replace the collapsed bridge with another bridge.

[Beltway]

The federal government is obligated to restore what was destroyed, not bankroll what was never there.

Like, if a waitress accidentally sneezes on my plate of spaghetti as she's bringing to the table, and she says she'll run back to the kitchen right away and have them make me another one, I can't just say, Hey, go ahead and upgrade that to a porterhouse steak at no extra charge!

Good analogy!

Porterhouse steaks are among the most expensive cuts you'll find at a butcher or steakhouse. You're getting both a tenderloin (filet mignon) and a strip steak (New York strip), which are already pricey on their own. T-shaped bone adds weight and flavor, but also increases price per pound. Porterhouses are typically large, often 24 oz or more, so even at a moderate price per pound, the total cost adds up.

[wanderer2575]

In response to the March 26, 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, struck by the cargo ship Dali, Congress passed the Baltimore BRIDGE Relief Act to ensure swift federal support. Section 3 of the law mandates a 100% federal share for emergency relief funds "to respond to damage caused by the cargo ship Dali." That language is precise and limited. It authorizes restoration, not reinvention.

As you noted, the law mandates full federal funding to "respond to damage."  That's a hole big enough to drive the proverbial ship through.  The "response" is whatever who's running the show says it is.  I don't necessarily disagree with the point I think you're trying to make, but the language of the law is hardly "precise and limited."

Also note that the "restoration, not reinvention" on which you argue should apply to a bridge also means that full federal funding would not be available for the tunnel you endorse.

[kphoger]

Also note that the "restoration, not reinvention" on which you argue should apply to a bridge also means that full federal funding would not be available for the tunnel you endorse.

Has he ever advocated that the federal dollar should fund a tunnel?  I don't remember him saying that.

[Rothman]

Any bridge replacement will bring the new bridge up to current standards, which the old bridge did not meet.

Beltway's entitled to his AI-generated opinion, but the project will progress and the world will still turn in spite of it.

[wanderer2575]

Also note that the "restoration, not reinvention" on which you argue should apply to a bridge also means that full federal funding would not be available for the tunnel you endorse.

Has he ever advocated that the federal dollar should fund a tunnel?  I don't remember him saying that.

I don't know that he ever specifically has.  But it should be obvious that a tunnel wouldn't happen without it so, I concede, I made an assumption.

[Beltway]

In response to the March 26, 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, struck by the cargo ship Dali, Congress passed the Baltimore BRIDGE Relief Act to ensure swift federal support. Section 3 of the law mandates a 100% federal share for emergency relief funds "to respond to damage caused by the cargo ship Dali." That language is precise and limited. It authorizes restoration, not reinvention.

As you noted, the law mandates full federal funding to "respond to damage."  That's a hole big enough to drive the proverbial ship through.  The "response" is whatever who's running the show says it is.  I don't necessarily disagree with the point I think you're trying to make, but the language of the law is hardly "precise and limited."
Also note that the "restoration, not reinvention" on which you argue should apply to a bridge also means that full federal funding would not be available for the tunnel you endorse.

This is the legislation --
"Notwithstanding subsection (e) of section 120 of title 23, United States Code, the Federal share for emergency relief funds made available under section 125 of that title to respond to damage caused by the cargo ship Dali to the Francis Scott Key Bridge located in Baltimore City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland, including that bridge and its approaches, shall be 100 percent."

" respond to damage caused by the cargo ship Dali " -- that is the truss span and the three plate girder spans -- it is not carte blanch to reinvent the whole crossing.

If Maryland wants more then they will have to provide state funds to make up the difference. The current administration will see to that -- simply by reading the letter of the law.

I have not changed my mind on tunnels and longer bridges -- appropriate but they don't warrant 100% federal funding either.

Frankly this whole situation is a dog's breakfast -- the funding, the entitlement attitude of Maryland, the proposed vulnerable design, and the intent to toll.

[Beltway]

Any bridge replacement will bring the new bridge up to current standards, which the old bridge did not meet.
Beltway's entitled to his AI-generated opinion, but the project will progress and the world will still turn in spite of it.

How is it that you stridently support this bridge scheme, but oppose replacing the I-81 viaduct in Syracuse? The latter which you have been posting on for the last several years. Seems not logical.

[Rothman]

Any bridge replacement will bring the new bridge up to current standards, which the old bridge did not meet.
Beltway's entitled to his AI-generated opinion, but the project will progress and the world will still turn in spite of it.

How is it that you stridently support this bridge scheme, but oppose replacing the I-81 viaduct in Syracuse? The latter which you have been posting on for the last several years. Seems not logical.

Because the two situations and contexts are very much different.

[Beltway]

Any bridge replacement will bring the new bridge up to current standards, which the old bridge did not meet.
Beltway's entitled to his AI-generated opinion, but the project will progress and the world will still turn in spite of it.

How is it that you stridently support this bridge scheme, but oppose replacing the I-81 viaduct in Syracuse? The latter which you have been posting on for the last several years. Seems not logical.

Because the two situations and contexts are very much different.

I have my own theories on both but they probably would run contrary to forum rules.

[Plutonic Panda]

Any bridge replacement will bring the new bridge up to current standards, which the old bridge did not meet.
Beltway's entitled to his AI-generated opinion, but the project will progress and the world will still turn in spite of it.

How is it that you stridently support this bridge scheme, but oppose replacing the I-81 viaduct in Syracuse? The latter which you have been posting on for the last several years. Seems not logical.

Because the two situations and contexts are very much different.

How?

[Rothman]

Any bridge replacement will bring the new bridge up to current standards, which the old bridge did not meet.
Beltway's entitled to his AI-generated opinion, but the project will progress and the world will still turn in spite of it.

How is it that you stridently support this bridge scheme, but oppose replacing the I-81 viaduct in Syracuse? The latter which you have been posting on for the last several years. Seems not logical.

Because the two situations and contexts are very much different.

How?

Key Bridge provides an essential crossing over water while the I-81 Viaduct was found not to be necessary, with added benefits to Syracuse itself if it was not rebuilt and other improvements made instead (e.g., reconstruction of I-690 and improvements along current I-481 and local streets downtown). 

But, by all means, repeat your argument for the tunnel in Syracuse, despite the fact professional engineers spent millions studying that alternative and concluding it was infeasible due to the water table, cost, and negative effect on the City... ;D

[PColumbus73]

Any bridge replacement will bring the new bridge up to current standards, which the old bridge did not meet.
Beltway's entitled to his AI-generated opinion, but the project will progress and the world will still turn in spite of it.

How is it that you stridently support this bridge scheme, but oppose replacing the I-81 viaduct in Syracuse? The latter which you have been posting on for the last several years. Seems not logical.

Because the two situations and contexts are very much different.

How?

Key Bridge provides an essential crossing over water while the I-81 Viaduct was found not to be necessary, with added benefits to Syracuse itself if it was not rebuilt and other improvements made instead (e.g., reconstruction of I-690 and improvements along current I-481 and local streets downtown). 

But, by all means, repeat your argument for the tunnel in Syracuse, despite the fact professional engineers spent millions studying that alternative an concluding it was infeasible due to the water table, cost, and negative effect on the City... ;D

Never mind that the circumstances of I-81 and the Key Bridge are vastly different. A container ship didn't smash into I-81.

[Beltway]

Key Bridge provides an essential crossing over water

How is it essential when 18 months later the 12 lanes of the two other harbor crossings (I-95 and I-895) are handling traffic better than most of the 8-lane I-495 Maryland Beltway that is unaddressed?

225,000 AADT total of which only 31,000 was on 695, and there were 3 harbor crossings in a 4 mile range.

while the I-81 Viaduct was found not to be necessary,

How is it not necessary considering the regional freeway connectivity and traffic volumes?

The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the I-81 Viaduct in Syracuse has historically been around 80,000 vehicles per day, according to New York State Department of Transportation estimates. This volume includes both local and through traffic, with a significant portion attributed to commuters, freight, and regional connectivity.

[PColumbus73]

while the I-81 Viaduct was found not to be necessary,

How is it not necessary considering the regional freeway connectivity and traffic volumes?

The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the I-81 Viaduct in Syracuse has historically been around 80,000 vehicles per day, according to New York State Department of Transportation estimates. This volume includes both local and through traffic, with a significant portion attributed to commuters, freight, and regional connectivity.

As you're arguing that the Key Bridge isn't regionally significant because I-95 & 895 can absorb the extra load, it's fair to argue that it's not necessary to rebuild the I-81 viaduct as all the freight and regional traffic can be (and is being) diverted onto I-481.

[Max Rockatansky]

The stated goal seems pretty clear to me on the first paragraph of the I-81 Syracuse Viaduct Removal Project page:

https://www.syr.gov/Projects/Infrastructure-Overview/I-81-Viaduct-Project

Me personally I'm not exactly one to buy blindly into the Urbanist narrative on freeway removal some equates to restorative justice.  Then again Syracuse has lost over one third of the peak population it once had.  Without really digging into the AADT I'd speculate the impacts of rerouting I-81 are probably a wash long term.  Rothman's accounts of the project doesn't really seem to indicate to me that it is much of get up in arms over.

Odd Beltway seemingly objects to I-81 removal project because he believes it to be necessary.  Certainly seems to contradict his stance on whether or not the Key Bridge should be replaced.  I suspect his actual rationale for the two stances isn't exactly "data driven."

[PColumbus73]

Me personally I'm not exactly one to buy blindly into the Urbanist narrative on freeway removal some equates to restorative justice.  Then again Syracuse has lost over one third of the peak population it once had.  Without really digging into the AADT I'd speculate the impacts of rerouting I-81 are probably a wash long term.  Rothman's accounts of the project doesn't really seem to indicate to me that it is much of get up in arms over.

Saving money on rebuilding and maintaining a modern interstate viaduct through downtown Syracuse would be justification enough from a state DOT point-of-view.

[Beltway]

while the I-81 Viaduct was found not to be necessary,

How is it not necessary considering the regional freeway connectivity and traffic volumes?
The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the I-81 Viaduct in Syracuse has historically been around 80,000 vehicles per day, according to New York State Department of Transportation estimates. This volume includes both local and through traffic, with a significant portion attributed to commuters, freight, and regional connectivity.

As you're arguing that the Key Bridge isn't regionally significant because I-95 & 895 can absorb the extra load, it's fair to argue that it's not necessary to rebuild the I-81 viaduct as all the freight and regional traffic can be (and is being) diverted onto I-481.

The issue is not about a statistical comparison of the two -- it is about Rothmann's logically contradictory stances regarding the two.

Odd Beltway seemingly objects to I-81 removal project because he believes it to be necessary.  Certainly seems to contradict his stance on whether or not the Key Bridge should be replaced.  I suspect his actual rationale for the two stances isn't exactly "data driven."

Taking something 80,000 AADT out of service deliberately that would be a common freeway rehab -- versus what to do about a destroyed 31,000 AADT crossing that has estimates ranging from $1.9 billion to $5 billion which shows a lack of engineering acumen by MDTA. Plus two other harbor freeway crossings within 4 miles and totaling 12 lanes that are handling the traffic.

I am not saying that it should not be replaced -- at length I have detailed the problems with what is currently proposed.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll be honest with you.  Once you mentioned you wrote a letter to DOGE opposing the Key Bridge replacement I was convinced this was political thing for you.  I also suspect if the current administration proposed the exact same funding mechanism for Key Bridge replacement you wouldn't had any objections.

Why dance around it?  If that is the actual reason for your objections I'll accept that is the way you actually feel.