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

[kphoger]

I didn't ask for your opinion -- I asked an admin. Let him respond.

Well, actually, you quoted a mod but then asked your question in the public forum.  If you only wanted Scott to respond, then presumably you'd have sent him a PM instead.

[Scott5114]

OK then, if crossing alternatives can't be discussed, then what about the matter of whether anything should be built at all -- under the current scheme that the entire country provides 100% federal funding outside of normal federal-aid highway allocations, and with tolling being allowed on a new bridge?

You can state that opinion once. After that, it becomes annoying just for the sake of being annoying—this is a road forum, not a government-efficiency or tax-policy forum. Repeatedly belaboring that point becomes "protracted debate on [a political] subject", which the forum rules discourage. So you can consider this the staff invoking our "right to limit debate on political topics if a moderator judges the topic to be too divisive."

[webny99]

Posts that appear to be a copy-paste of AI/LLM output will be removed

I support this, and it's worth noting that much of the subjectivity can be removed using one of various AI detectors (I've use zerogpt.com ever since it was recommended here by J N Winkler).

OK then, if crossing alternatives can't be discussed, then what about the matter of whether anything should be built at all -- under the current scheme that the entire country provides 100% federal funding outside of normal federal-aid highway allocations, and with tolling being allowed on a new bridge?

The existing 12 Interstate lanes across the harbor carry about 225,000 AADT and that is not excessive. As far as HAZMAT, that was only about 400 shipments per day, hardly justification for spending $2 billion, and they can think creatively and say allow escorted HAZMAT shipments between 1 and 5 AM in the Fort McHenry Tunnel outer tubes.

The idea that if Maryland wants this bridge scheme then let them fund it as the original -- with toll revenue bonds and leave the feds out of it.

Would that be acceptable material here?

Congratulations!

[vdeane]

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.

All of the previous times you've brought this up, both on here and on Facebook (and presumably anywhere else you've gone on and on with the subject).  I don't know if you think that all of us on AARoads are new to your obsession or not, but we aren't.  Many of us are the exact same people you were arguing with on Facebook months before your return to the forum.  And if you thought your "update" (which was like one sentence before you spent at least a paragraph going over the same stuff again) would be some game-changing thing that would make everyone here change their opinions and rally behind you - sorry, but it wasn't.  Not even close.

"You must have a financial stake":  That's an ad hominem attacking motive instead of engaging the argument.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure why else you'd be so obsessed, especially since you don't strike me as a "safety at all costs" person (such is more in line with the stances of anti-highway, lower the speed limit to 20 New Urbanists).

[Beltway]

OK then, if crossing alternatives can't be discussed, then what about the matter of whether anything should be built at all -- under the current scheme that the entire country provides 100% federal funding outside of normal federal-aid highway allocations, and with tolling being allowed on a new bridge?

You can state that opinion once. After that, it becomes annoying just for the sake of being annoying—this is a road forum, not a government-efficiency or tax policy forum.

OK, but this forum has all kinds of wide open and controversial discussions going on.

Seems like there is a simple solution.

This thread has a name referring to the collapse and (implied) recovery of the channel and wreckage.

How about creating a thread called Key Bridge Rebuild and having a rule that only the current project design can be discussed there?

Then this thread could remain open for the wide range of discussion as has been in the past.

[Scott5114]

I support this, and it's worth noting that much of the subjectivity can be removed using one of various AI detectors

It should be noted that AI detectors simply do pattern-matching for the style that popular LLMs tend to output—use of em dashes, use of words like "delve" and "tapestry", and other such tells. But this can lead to false positives when a human's writing style include similar characteristics—I imagine if you run this post through it, it will say I'm an AI just because of the em dashes, which I have been using since middle school, and can be consistently found in my post history back to 2009 if you wanted to delve that deep.

[Scott5114]

How about creating a thread called Key Bridge Rebuild and having a rule that only the current project design can be discussed there?

Then this thread could remain open for the wide range of discussion as has been in the past.

Duplicative.

[roadman65]

OK then, if crossing alternatives can't be discussed, then what about the matter of whether anything should be built at all -- under the current scheme that the entire country provides 100% federal funding outside of normal federal-aid highway allocations, and with tolling being allowed on a new bridge?

You can state that opinion once. After that, it becomes annoying just for the sake of being annoying—this is a road forum, not a government-efficiency or tax policy forum.

OK, but this forum has all kinds of wide open and controversial discussions going on.

Seems like there is a simple solution.

This thread has a name referring to the collapse and (implied) recovery of the channel and wreckage.

How about creating a thread called Key Bridge Rebuild and having a rule that only the current project design can be discussed there?

Then this thread could remain open for the wide range of discussion as has been in the past.

Why don't you write a letter to the State of Maryland and address your concerns.  We have no influence here to change things.

From what I've read, you keep rehashing the same tune over and over making the others here weary.

Just chill out and address your concerns to those who can act on your ideals. Quit agitating people here who can't do anything.

[Beltway]

How about creating a thread called Key Bridge Rebuild and having a rule that only the current project design can be discussed there?
Then this thread could remain open for the wide range of discussion as has been in the past.

Duplicative.

You added this to your previous post after I had replied to it --

Repeatedly belaboring that point becomes "protracted debate on [a political] subject", which the forum rules discourage. So you can consider this the staff invoking our "right to limit debate on political topics if a moderator judges the topic to be too divisive."
. . . .

I honestly don't address this in a political mode -- my concerns are rooted in engineering, transportation planning, environmental quality, economics, maritime safety and highway safety.

[Scott5114]

I honestly don't address this in a political mode -- my concerns are rooted in engineering, transportation planning, environmental quality, economics, maritime safety and highway safety.

Okay, then let's put it like this. Yeah, the no-build option is an option. Maybe, in your opinion, it's the best option. It's not the option MDTA has chosen, however, so it belongs in Fictional Highways, since it has no more bearing on reality than "the control city for I-70 eastbound out of Denver should be Topeka" posted by someone who honestly believes that.

You are more than welcome to start a no-build option Francis Scott Key bridge thread in Fictional Highways.

[Beltway]

I honestly don't address this in a political mode -- my concerns are rooted in engineering, transportation planning, environmental quality, economics, maritime safety and highway safety.

Okay, then let's put it like this. Yeah, the no-build option is an option. Maybe, in your opinion, it's the best option. It's not the option MDTA has chosen, however, so it belongs in Fictional Highways, since it has no more bearing on reality than "the control city for I-70 eastbound out of Denver should be Topeka" posted by someone who honestly believes that.
You are more than welcome to start a no-build option Francis Scott Key bridge thread in Fictional Highways.

Fictional Highways is open only to members who are logged on. IOW not to non-members like in this group and I want them to be able to see my posts -- some of which will read them weeks to years in the future.

That is not a negotiable solution.

[Rothman]

 Wow.

 

[kphoger]

Scott K. — Daddy, can I have a thread in Regional Boards?

Scott N. — No, Scotty.

Scott K. — Please?  Pretty please?

Scott N. — You've made some bad choices, and you need to learn that your choices have consequences.

Scott K. — But everyone else gets to have a thread about roundabouts!

Scott N. — I said no, and that's the answer.

Scott K. — That's not fair!  Now nobody will see my posts!  I hate you!

[Scott5114]

That is not a negotiable solution.

It is a good thing this isn't a negotiation, then.

[Beltway]

That is not a negotiable solution.

It is a good thing this isn't a negotiation, then.

Yes, but my solution would be worth considering, and I don't consider it redundant -- actually it makes sense to have a separate thread for construction.

A Key Bridge Rebuild thread that would track any and all news and updates therein. The rules would restrict it to current MDTA plans and designs only. Posters who love the project and MDTA and think that it is the Cat's Meow would enjoy it.

This thread would be for general info pertinent to the thread title and aftermath.

[kphoger]

A Key Bridge Rebuild thread that would track any and all news and updates therein. The rules would restrict it to current MDTA plans and designs only. Posters who love the project and MDTA think that it is the Cat's Meow would enjoy it.

This thread would be for general info pertinent to the thread title and aftermath.

So, your fantasies would have no place in either thread, then?

[hbelkins]

I'll make it clear, you can write this down, I want to fuck a woman as a horse. None of this is a secret, I just, to be clear, many jokes have been made about this but I stand by it. My moral principles are ROCK SOLID. I'm... my feet are firmly planted in the ground. I've got my boots up, they're planted firmly, you cannot move me from my position. This isn't a secret. Talk to a therapist? Why do you want to be the horse Vaush? Because then I'd have a giant dick. Okay? Couldn't you have an uh, a big dick the other way? Well yeah, I mean yeah um, I could have a big dick hypothetically in any variety of scenarios but then it wouldn't really be a horse dick. "Well you could be a human with a horse dick", yes but then I wouldn't have that powerful stallion energy using it. There you go, that's it, that's the whole thing.

Somebody told me that I needed to check out this thread, which I had not done recently because it was not of real interest to me, to see how it had gone off the rails.

I wasn't expecting the above.

[kphoger]

Somebody told me that I needed to check out this thread, which I had not done recently because it was not of real interest to me, to see how it had gone off the rails.

I wasn't expecting the above.

I saw it in the 'favorite quotes' thread before I saw it in context.  At first, I thought someone must have dug up one of his old posts from yeas ago.  But nope!

[wanderer2575]

That is not a negotiable solution.

It is a good thing this isn't a negotiation, then.

Yes, but my solution would be worth considering, and I don't consider it redundant -- actually it makes sense to have a separate thread for construction.

A Key Bridge Rebuild thread that would track any and all news and updates therein. The rules would restrict it to current MDTA plans and designs only. Posters who love the project and MDTA think that it is the Cat's Meow would enjoy it.

This thread would be for general info pertinent to the thread title and aftermath.

Other way around, methinks.  "General info pertinent to the thread title and aftermath" would be the bridge rebuild.  The theoretical tunnel or no-build option at this particular location goes in another thread.  As you suggested awhile ago and then immediately ignored.

[Max Rockatansky]

I spent my day off driving along two contenders for the worst paved roads (or best depending on perspective l?) I've ever been on.  Now that I've cleaned the dishes and relaxed a bit I've gotten around to catching up on this thread.  I remain unsurprised that Beltway is choosing to be a one man army fighting the entire world. 

[Strider]

That is not a negotiable solution.

It is a good thing this isn't a negotiation, then.

Yes, but my solution would be worth considering, and I don't consider it redundant -- actually it makes sense to have a separate thread for construction.

A Key Bridge Rebuild thread that would track any and all news and updates therein. The rules would restrict it to current MDTA plans and designs only. Posters who love the project and MDTA and think that it is the Cat's Meow would enjoy it.

This thread would be for general info pertinent to the thread title and aftermath.

Take it to MdTA if you want to, however you're not going to convince them as the decision was already made. Move your arguments to Fictional Highways part and go from there. I want to see updates regarding the Francis Scott Key (I-695) bridge rebuild, not your arguments.

The admin already informed you that you are welcome to create a thread in the Fictional Highways, so don't be a stubborn person.

[vdeane]

Fictional Highways is open only to members who are logged on. IOW not to non-members like in this group and I want them to be able to see my posts -- some of which will read them weeks to years in the future.

That is not a negotiable solution.

Sounds like the correct solution is to get a personal blog, since that's how you seem to want to use the forum.

[Beltway]

Yes, but my solution would be worth considering, and I don't consider it redundant -- actually it makes sense to have a separate thread for construction.
A Key Bridge Rebuild thread that would track any and all news and updates therein. The rules would restrict it to current MDTA plans and designs only. Posters who love the project and MDTA and think that it is the Cat's Meow would enjoy it.
This thread would be for general info pertinent to the thread title and aftermath.

Take it to MdTA if you want to, however you're not going to convince them as the decision was already made. Move your arguments to Fictional Highways part and go from there. I want to see updates regarding the Francis Scott Key (I-695) bridge rebuild, not your arguments.
The admin already informed you that you are welcome to create a thread in the Fictional Highways, so don't be a stubborn person.

I am not going to create a thread in Fictional Highways -- as I said unlike nearly every other thread it is not visible to non-members. Besides an outer harbor tunnel is not "fictional" if you know the history of the crossing.

Whether or not there is a change in MDTA's mind -- I'm documenting the consequences of their choices. That's not fiction. That's archival clarity.

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

[Max Rockatansky]

Here's a thought, is Beltway trying to get himself banned?  Sure seems like he's giving it the old college try.  There is stubborn and then stuff like this, I don't understand how it is worth it.

[Scott5114]

I don't think Beltway was here when we had the user from Finland keep posting fictional ideas throughout the forum, and then was astonished to find that I had the ability to move them all to Fictional without his input.