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

[kphoger]

He shouldn't have made promises like that, the next day, without knowing anything about the facility such as it being a tollroad and not a federal aid highway, without understanding highway funding in general, making stupid comments about how he rode the train over the bridge, without knowing how completely out of step that promise would be historically, without out the appearance of it being largesse to a fellow state.

Perhaps.  But he did make that promise.  And that's presumably why the governor of Maryland didn't request him to declare a state of emergency.  If he hadn't made that promise, and if therefore the governor had requested an emergency declaration, then he surely would have granted the request.

[SEWIGuy]

$2 billion in 100% highway special federal funding for a non-emergency? Nothing like this has been done elsewhere.
I-35W bridge collapse at under $200 million would be the closest, and that -was- an emergency -- 130,000 AADT 8-lane urban Interstate highway -- and they did not charge a toll.
So I think it should be reviewed in Congress to see if special project specific funding legislation can be arranged -- that is a decent compromise.

It is not an emergency

You keep saying this.
A bridge collapses on an Interstate in a major city in 2007.  Both the mayor and the governor declare a state of emergency.  Apparently, this is an emergency.
A bridge collapses on an Interstate in a major city in 2024.  Both the mayor and the governor declare a state of emergency.  Apparently, this is not an emergency.
The only difference I see is that the President didn't declare a state of emergency after the Key Bridge collapse.  But that's only because the governor didn't ask the President to declare one.  And, in turn, that was likely because the President had already promised:
"It's my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge, and I expect congress to support my effort. This will take some time. But the people of Baltimore can count on us to stick with them every step of the way until the port is reopen and the bridge is rebuilt. We're not leaving until this job is done."

He shouldn't have made promises like that, the next day, without knowing anything about the facility such as it being a tollroad and not a federal aid highway, without understanding highway funding in general, making stupid comments about how he rode the train over the bridge, without knowing how completely out of step that promise would be historically, without out the appearance of it being largesse to a fellow state. His party had a one-seat majority in the Senate where the omnibus bill originated. The whole process stinks like vomic.

There are processes in place whereby state and federal agencies could decide what to do in such a case. Not have the president immediately jump in with his ideas.

I am fine with this being addressed with a legitimate legislative process in the current Congress where a standalone bill can be considered as was in the case of I-35W bridge. Perhaps consider a federal share of 50% which would be a billion dollars and far greater than anyone has gotten before.

You really think the President of the United States needs to have a intricate knowledge over highway funding, and whether or not the road in question is a federal aid highway, before making funding promises after a high profile disaster like that? Cmon...

[Beltway]

Perhaps.  But he did make that promise.  And that's presumably why the governor of Maryland didn't request him to declare a state of emergency.  If he hadn't made that promise, and if therefore the governor had requested an emergency declaration, then he surely would have granted the request.

Depends -- the port was blocked to all ship traffic -- that is an emergency that requires clearing the wreckage which took 8 weeks to fully open the shipping channel. Emergency declaration and FEMA involvement is appropriate.

What to do regarding a new crossing is another separate issue. A broad strike force could have been empaneled to study for 4 weeks or so and come up with recommendations.

You really think the President of the United States needs to have a intricate knowledge over highway funding, and whether or not the road in question is a federal aid highway, before making funding promises after a high profile disaster like that? Cmon...

He has highway and transportation experts that he can consult. That doesn't mean that they are not mini me types, though.

Even a lowly guy like me can see the issues I outlined.

[kphoger]

It is not an emergency

that is an emergency

Now I'm confused.  Was the Key Bridge collapse an emergency, or wasn't it?

[Beltway]

It is not an emergency

that is an emergency

Now I'm confused.  Was the Key Bridge collapse an emergency, or wasn't it?

Creative snipping is cool.

This is the kind of discourse that the admins would most likely want to be over in the Fictional Highways group thread on the bridge.

[kphoger]

This is the kind of discourse that the admins would most likely want to be over in the Fictional Highways group thread on the bridge.

But I really am confused.  What is your position?  Is it that the collapse itself qualified as an emergency, but that the replacement does not?  I think that might be what you're saying.

[Beltway]

But I really am confused.  What is your position?  Is it that the collapse itself qualified as an emergency, but that the replacement does not?  I think that might be what you're saying.

These are two completely separate events and processes --
1. Clear the wreckage and restore navigation. That is a massive undertaking and all maritime traffic to a major harbor is blocked until then.

2. Build a new crossing. The road traffic immediately moved to other cross-harbor freeways.

[sprjus4]

It is not an emergency

that is an emergency

Now I'm confused.  Was the Key Bridge collapse an emergency, or wasn't it?

Context is key here. In the first post, he was referring to the bridge replacement (not an emergency).

In the second post, he was referring to clearing the shipping channel from debris (emergency).

I'm not taking a position here, but that was pretty obvious based on the posts.

[kphoger]

Context is key here. In the first post, he was referring to the bridge replacement (not an emergency).

In the second post, he was referring to clearing the shipping channel from debris (emergency).

I'm not taking a position here, but that was pretty obvious based on the posts.

Yes, it finally got through my thick skull earlier.  But thank you for clarifying for my sake anyway.

[Scott5114]

coo

[vdeane]

But I really am confused.  What is your position?  Is it that the collapse itself qualified as an emergency, but that the replacement does not?  I think that might be what you're saying.

These are two completely separate events and processes --
1. Clear the wreckage and restore navigation. That is a massive undertaking and all maritime traffic to a major harbor is blocked until then.

2. Build a new crossing. The road traffic immediately moved to other cross-harbor freeways.

I think it's safe to say that most people here don't consider them to be two completely separate events/processes.  Considering them such is the exact same reasoning the opponents of restoring six lanes to the BQE use to call it a "widening" after it was reduced to four as an emergency measure to prolong the life of the triple cantilever.

[kphoger]

Careful, you wouldn't want to be accused of being part of the coterie of incogent supid-stuff posters.  He might sic a mod on you.

coo

[hbelkins]

Plus -- the lack of Key Bridge is not an emergency. The two Interstate highway cross-harbor tunnels carry the 225,000 AADT now and have a total of 12 lanes. That is about the same AADT as the I-495 American Legion Bridge which has 8 thru lanes.  The 400 or so hazmat shipments per day can use surface routes.

Would this be the same American Legion Bridge that people on this forum routinely complain is in dire need of widening?

Yes indeed -- the northern Potomac River crossing for I-495 Capital Beltway. It is also structurally obsolete.

Actually the full name is American Legion Memorial Bridge.

The bridge is jointly managed by Maryland and Virginia, but ownership and operational responsibility primarily fall under Maryland's jurisdiction. The bridge is part of the MDOT SHA system.

Picking nits here -- the former terms used to describe bridges were "structurally deficient" and "functionally obsolete." Those terms are no longer used; replaced instead by a numerical sufficiency rating and terms of "good," "fair" and "poor" condition.

One problem we always had was reassuring people that "functionally obsolete" didn't mean the bridge was in danger of collapsing. "Functionally obsolete" meant that the bridge was not up to modern standards such as lane width or vertical clearance. The Brent Spence Bridge (I-71/I-75 across the Ohio River) was deemed "functionally obsolete" due to capacity issues and the lack of shoulders when the bridge deck was restriped to provide four through lanes. My compatriot in northern Kentucky had a difficult time reassuring people that the bridge wasn't going to fall into the river anytime the term "functionally obsolete" was used.

[kphoger]

Considering them such is the exact same reasoning the opponents of restoring six lanes to the BQE use to call it a "widening" after it was reduced to four as an emergency measure to prolong the life of the triple cantilever.

As much as I appreciate that you might be trying to agree with me about something, I don't follow your logic.

[kphoger]

ping

disc

[Beltway]

Yes indeed -- the northern Potomac River crossing for I-495 Capital Beltway. It is also structurally obsolete.
Actually the full name is American Legion Memorial Bridge.
The bridge is jointly managed by Maryland and Virginia, but ownership and operational responsibility primarily fall under Maryland's jurisdiction. The bridge is part of the MDOT SHA system.

Picking nits here -- the former terms used to describe bridges were "structurally deficient" and "functionally obsolete." Those terms are no longer used; replaced instead by a numerical sufficiency rating and terms of "good," "fair" and "poor" condition.
One problem we always had was reassuring people that "functionally obsolete" didn't mean the bridge was in danger of collapsing. "Functionally obsolete" meant that the bridge was not up to modern standards such as lane width or vertical clearance. The Brent Spence Bridge (I-71/I-75 across the Ohio River) was deemed "functionally obsolete" due to capacity issues and the lack of shoulders when the bridge deck was restriped to provide four through lanes. My compatriot in northern Kentucky had a difficult time reassuring people that the bridge wasn't going to fall into the river anytime the term "functionally obsolete" was used.

Well I didn't mean to suggest that it may be in danger of collapsing. It isn't. But most of the structure is 63 years old and the widened parts 33 years.

The terminology change doesn't erase the underlying deficiencies, it just rebrands them in softer, less alarming language. A bridge once deemed "functionally obsolete" for having narrow shoulders or outdated geometry might now be labeled merely "fair," which downplays urgency and obscures legacy design flaws.

[hotdogPi]

ping

disc

Now if this was Wisconsin, the governor would actually have the power of this "snipping tool"...

[Plutonic Panda]

The only opinion I have on the replacement bridge is that the new bridge should have the same number of lanes as on either side of it, unlike the old one, if only for consistency.

That seems pretty reasonable. Even as someone that likes large freeways there's no point in adding lanes to the bridge if they're not gonna widen the freeways leading to and from it which they aren't. What would be nice if they added shoulders and a pedestrian/bicycle element to it.

Maybe if there was some redevelopment plan in the Hawkins Point area it would be easier to justify pedestrian / bicycle facilities. As-is, other than Fort Armistead Park, it would feel like a dead-end.

I still feel there should be a way for an alternative especially since it's being built from scratch.

[vdeane]

Considering them such is the exact same reasoning the opponents of restoring six lanes to the BQE use to call it a "widening" after it was reduced to four as an emergency measure to prolong the life of the triple cantilever.

As much as I appreciate that you might be trying to agree with me about something, I don't follow your logic.

The BQE was built with six lanes and had always functioned that way since forever.  Because the condition is so poor, NYC reduced it to four lanes (and implemented closer truck weight monitoring) until such time that it can finally be replaced.  Because it's presently striped for four lanes, New Urbanist groups (who would really prefer there to be no BQE at all) are saying that any alternative that restores six lanes constitutes a "widening" of the road and should be stopped (for all the usual reasons about induced demand etc.).

Here, the bridge has existed since forever, got hit by a ship and taken out, and now because there is no bridge there, Beltway is asserting that the need to replace it is not an emergency and that the project should be treated the same as any new bridge being built where there was never a bridge before.

[Beltway]

The BQE was built with six lanes and had always functioned that way since forever.  Because the condition is so poor, NYC reduced it to four lanes (and implemented closer truck weight monitoring) until such time that it can finally be replaced.  Because it's presently striped for four lanes, New Urbanist groups (who would really prefer there to be no BQE at all) are saying that any alternative that restores six lanes constitutes a "widening" of the road and should be stopped (for all the usual reasons about induced demand etc.).

Here, the bridge has existed since forever, got hit by a ship and taken out, and now because there is no bridge there, Beltway is asserting that the need to replace it is not an emergency and that the project should be treated the same as any new bridge being built where there was never a bridge before.

Building a new harbor crossing is not an emergency priority. I-95 and I-895 are handling the traffic better than typical Washington Maryland Beltway traffic. And the Baltimore metro is 1/2 the population of the Washington metro area.

I-95 in Baltimore itself is a modern 8-lane freeway, and blows the BQE out of the water in terms of capacity and quality.

I-895 is a 4-lane freeway, so there are 12 lanes of cross-harbor Interstate highways.

The two Interstate highway cross-harbor tunnels carry the 225,000 AADT now and have a total of 12 lanes.

The I-495 American Legion Bridge (Potomac River) has 8 thru lanes and has 235,000 AADT.

The Key Bridge had 1/8 of that traffic and Maryland is doing nothing to replace the antiquated ALB and widen the rest of I-495 between VA and I-270 to the VA 12-lane cross-section (4-2-2-4) with HOT lanes.

That is a more critical problem for the Washington-Baltimore area but Maryland is not treating it as an emergency.

They don't care what happens south of the Potomac River.

[PColumbus73]

We don't need to replace the American Legion Bridge because the other DC area bridges can absorb the traffic, if we lost the bridge for whatever reason, there's 6-lanes on I-66, 12-lanes on I-395, and 10-lanes on I-95/495. Not counting the surface streets there's double the lanes across the Potomac than there are lanes across the Patapsco. Therefore, the American Legion Bridge would also not be an emergency fix.

Is there Maryland-Virginia beef I'm not familiar with?