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

[Beltway]

When a post is framed as "angry" or "repetitive," ...
labeling my post as emotional or repetitive ...

Don't complain about our calling your posts repetitive, when you freely admit to being intentionally repetitive.

Your state of denial and continuing to argue is intentionally repetitive.

It takes two.

[NE2]

...to take a poo.

[Max Rockatansky]

Pooing is cool...

Except when it isn't, none is this poo is cool.

[kphoger]

It takes two.

...to take a poo.

[vdeane]

I've restated key metrics because they remain unaddressed.

People aren't obligated to respond to points you want them to respond to.  Often people won't when there's nothing to discuss, or if they don't seem to be relevant.  You keep saying "traffic has rerouted" as a point to why this isn't an emergency.  Well, what did you expect it to do?  Drive on the closed route and then end up in the bottom of the channel?  Continuing to restate the same point again and again isn't productive.

As for the AADT, that's not the only factor.  The Key Bridge served a different area, including a lot of industrial areas.  I'm guessing most of the traffic was local, including freight.  Comparing the number of lanes and AADT between the two tunnels to a bridge in the DC area and acting like that's the end-all be-all is disingenuous.

And we're suffering in Virginia because of it.

Also, we don't care about your grievance.  News flash: states tend to prioritize the needs of people in their own state over those of other states.  Look at North Carolina not widening I-95, or VDOT not planning its portion of I-87.

[kphoger]

People aren't obligated to respond to points you want them to respond to.

Golly, it sure seems like I've heard that somewhere before.  Oh yeah, that's right...

By posting in our forum, you automatically agree to the following:

What's not allowed:

Demanding that someone reply to your topic or post. Sorry, but you can't force people to be interested in commenting on what you said.

[algorerhythms]

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

There used to be, but a certain Mr. Lee didn't get his way (and lost his farm in Arlington along the way).

[sprjus4]

And we're suffering in Virginia because of it.

Also, we don't care about your grievance.  News flash: states tend to prioritize the needs of people in their own state over those of other states.  Look at North Carolina not widening I-95, or VDOT not planning its portion of I-87.

To be fair, the Maryland side has terrible traffic. It's only bad on the Virginia side approaching the state line because it reduces lanes.

Maryland is suffering more.

Both states refuse to construct a bypass for the area for long distance traffic, but that is for another discussion.

[PColumbus73]

And we're suffering in Virginia because of it.

Also, we don't care about your grievance.  News flash: states tend to prioritize the needs of people in their own state over those of other states.  Look at North Carolina not widening I-95, or VDOT not planning its portion of I-87.

To be fair, the Maryland side has terrible traffic. It's only bad on the Virginia side approaching the state line because it reduces lanes.

Maryland is suffering more.

Both states refuse to construct a bypass for the area for long distance traffic, but that is for another discussion.

...the siren song of I-366 beckons

[Beltway]

I've restated key metrics because they remain unaddressed.

People aren't obligated to respond to points you want them to respond to.  Often people won't when there's nothing to discuss, or if they don't seem to be relevant.  You keep saying "traffic has rerouted" as a point to why this isn't an emergency.  Well, what did you expect it to do?  Drive on the closed route and then end up in the bottom of the channel?  Continuing to restate the same point again and again isn't productive.

You aren't obligated to keep replying to my posts either. It takes two people to have an argument don't you know.

Likewise if you do reply to my post then I can decide whether or not to reply to it.

You think it is an emergency. I don't. Example: If the Mackinac Bridge collapsed that would indeed be an emergency, considering it is the only crossing between the two parts of Michigan and it is part of the mainline Interstate highway I-75 that connects Florida to Canada.

As for the AADT, that's not the only factor.  The Key Bridge served a different area, including a lot of industrial areas.  I'm guessing most of the traffic was local, including freight.  Comparing the number of lanes and AADT between the two tunnels to a bridge in the DC area and acting like that's the end-all be-all is disingenuous.

I picked the I-495 ALB as one example. It carries 8 times as much traffic and it also is a major interstate freight route, and it is part of connecting three other mainline Interstate highways to carry their traffic around Washington (I-66 to I-95 North and to I-270 to I-70; I-95 South to I-495 to I-270 to I-70).

It is not inaccurate to say that the I-495 ALB has 8 times the importance of the Outer Harbor Crossing -- and ALB has no realistic alternate.

And we're suffering in Virginia because of it.

News flash: states tend to prioritize the needs of people in their own state over those of other states.  Look at North Carolina not widening I-95, or VDOT not planning its portion of I-87.

Maryland and Virginia share a common border that passes thru a 6 million population metro.

It is critical for those two state to coordinate. They agreed back in the 1950s where the two I-495 Potomac River bridges would be located, so that the beltway could be built.

Virginia and Washington agreed where to place their joint river crossings.

In 2000 Virginia and Washington and Maryland coordinated to form a coordination committee to officially decide on what to do with the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and approaches.

That was the last serious effort by Maryland toward Washington regional traffic on both sides of the Potomac River.

North Carolina is widening parts of I-95, and they are far from any major Virginia metro, and they don't carry 235,000 AADT.

On I-87, Virginia US-17 is already a modern 4-lane expressway. North Carolina DOT's financial situation will probably push it back to 2050 or beyond. Long enough to where US-58 from I-95 to I-264 will likely incrementally be improved to a full freeway design by then.

To be fair, the Maryland side has terrible traffic. It's only bad on the Virginia side approaching the state line because it reduces lanes. Maryland is suffering more.

With the current I-495 West? Yes -- Virginia has the last 12-lane widening nearing completion -- and Maryland stays with 8 lane and their suffering is self-inflicted.

Both states refuse to construct a bypass for the area for long distance traffic, but that is for another discussion.

Virginia would participate -- the Western Transportation Corridor EIS study about 1995-2002 was the western outer bypass identified in the 1990 Washington Bypass Study. Maryland had no interest in building their part.

[Beltway]

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

There used to be, but a certain Mr. Lee didn't get his way (and lost his farm in Arlington along the way).

Maryland–Virginia tensions are seen in infrastructure delays, cultural divides, and political contrasts. Maryland's rapid Key Bridge response, juxtaposed with years of inaction on the American Legion Bridge, fuels Virginia's sense of neglect. Politically, Maryland leans liberal with strong urban cores, while Virginia balances liberal suburbs with conservative rural and small city regions, creating divergent priorities in regional planning.

Northern Virginia's economic clout often clashes with Maryland's centralized decision-making around Baltimore and Washington. These frictions, rooted in funding, representation, and identity, shape cross-border skepticism and reinforce a quiet rivalry that influences everything from transportation policy to forum debates. It's not war, but it's not nothing either.

[vdeane]

Virginia would participate -- the Western Transportation Corridor EIS study about 1995-2002 was the western outer bypass identified in the 1990 Washington Bypass Study. Maryland had no interest in building their part.

In theory.  But given the way I-73 has gone, I wouldn't treat it like a guarantee.

Maryland's rapid Key Bridge response, juxtaposed with years of inaction on the American Legion Bridge, fuels Virginia's sense of neglect.

States tend to move faster on replacing existing infrastructure that is unexpectedly unavailable than they are at building new stuff (especially in liberal areas, where building anything new is met with great skepticism by the usual suspects).  Plus action at the American Legion Bridge would have already been under construction if Larry Hogan had managed to push that project through before it got killed by NIMBYs.

[sprjus4]

Both states refuse to construct a bypass for the area for long distance traffic, but that is for another discussion.

Virginia would participate -- the Western Transportation Corridor EIS study about 1995-2002 was the western outer bypass identified in the 1990 Washington Bypass Study. Maryland had no interest in building their part.

1990 was 35 years ago. 2002 was 23 years ago. That's no sure indication VDOT is interested in a bypass these days.

They're not even interested in widening I-95.

VDOT could build a bypass between I-95 in Fredericksburg and I-66, but hasn't even seemed remotely interested. Heavy congested area it would bypass near I-95, along with a heavily traveled US-17 and US-29 corridor and provide relief.

Could be extended further north to I-70 in the future should Maryland participate.

VDOT hasn't even studied it in 20+ years, they're not interested either. It's both states, not just Maryland.

[Scott5114]

I rolled the thread back to the post just before the covid one. The thread somehow got so out of hand that the database was counting the posts in here as negative posts, which I have never seen before, and it frankly kind of terrifies me if even MariaDB is objecting to whatever the hell all that was about.

[kphoger]

The thread somehow got so out of hand that the database was counting the posts in here as negative posts ...

Well, a lot of the posts definitely were negative.

[jeffandnicole]

I rolled the thread back to the post just before the covid one. The thread somehow got so out of hand that the database was counting the posts in here as negative posts, which I have never seen before, and it frankly kind of terrifies me if even MariaDB is objecting to whatever the hell all that was about.

The thread created its own hidden Dislike option.

[Beltway]

Given the very possible major reductions in the federal funding, I would support FHWA calculating the cost of replacing the fallen spans and grant that number to MDTA.

A modern cantilever 3-span structure for the 2,644 foot main section, and replacement of the three missing plate girder spans. I am surmising that would be around $400-500 million. I am aware that the rest of the bridge is in the process of being dismantled, but I am thinking in terms of a financial baseline post-March 2024.

Then MDTA can fund whatever other features (such as an all-new higher and longer and wider bridge) they want with state funds, and toll it as a toll-assisted facility.

Actually Maryland is already preparing a financial contingency plan for the loss of part of the federal funds.

[Beltway]

The Sunshine Skyway replacement illustrates the limits of federal participation when Interstate designation is mistaken for funding entitlement. Though the bridge carries I-275 traffic, neither the original 1954 span nor the 1972 southbound addition was built with Interstate Construction funds. Both were financed through toll revenue bonds, placing them outside the category of "chargeable" Interstate facilities. This distinction matters. While the route was later incorporated into the Interstate system, its funding lineage disqualified it from the 90 percent federal reimbursement typically associated with federally constructed segments.

When the southbound span collapsed in 1980, FHWA provided emergency relief funds to restore service, but did not treat the replacement as a full Interstate reconstruction. Florida opted for a cable-stayed design, more expensive and ambitious than a simple span replacement, and absorbed the design and enhancement costs. The federal share was capped at roughly 59 percent of the $230 million total, reflecting a restoration posture rather than a discretionary upgrade. This decision aligned with broader budgetary constraints and a federal preference for minimal obligation when states pursue enhancements beyond baseline recovery.

It was in the heart of the original Interstate Construction program. If a project didn't qualify under the Federal-Aid Interstate program, the federal share would typically drop to 50% or lower, depending on the classification: Primary, Secondary, or Urban routes.

The precedent is instructive. Maryland's Key Bridge, if similarly classified as non-chargeable, may face the same funding ceiling. Even if it carries Interstate traffic, its toll history and MDTA stewardship suggest a lineage that FHWA could treat as state-led. A federal baseline grant to replace the fallen spans, anchored to post-March 2024 conditions, would mirror the Skyway model. Any enhancements in height, width, or design would then fall to Maryland, funded through tolling or state-issued bonds. The lesson is clear: designation alone does not confer entitlement. Funding origin shapes obligation, and states must navigate that gap when disaster reframes the infrastructure ledger.