Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge Has Collapsed

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by mhays

PS, I'm not a technical person, but I'd be shocked if existing piers had any use for a taller bridge. The demands on these would be very different, including lateral/wind forces.

I meant more the anchorage (is that the right word?) ... not the old existing piers that we see but re-using the already furnished pier caps above the water line. I'm not an engineer so I'm not sure about the terminology or the feasibility but it seems reasonable to think you wouldn't actually have to completely build brand new connections to the river/harbor floor.,

[xzmattzx]

I would imagine you have to start from scratch with any new bridge (or tunnel). Why build a bridge with the same footprint in the river, and risk another ship collision? A new bridge could have piers closer to land and a wider shipping lane.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

in other words, maersk will say it wasn’t me and slip out of responsibility and the contractor ship line will cry broke and have limited insurance … so lawyers will get paid and the taxpayers will end up footing the bill.

aaaannnnddd here it comes ...

although this occured within the usa, not on the open seas, so we will see what happens ...



Titanic law helps ship owner limit liability in Baltimore bridge collapse

UPDATED MAR 27, 2024, 10:44 AM
FacebookTelegram


NEW YORK – The owner of the Singapore-flagged ship that rammed into a Baltimore bridge could face hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims after the accident sent vehicles plunging into the water and threw the eastern US transportation network into chaos.

But legal experts said there is a path for reducing liability under an obscure 19th-century law once invoked by the owner of the Titanic to limit its payout for the 1912 sinking.


more:
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/u...ridge-collapse

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

so … maersk is paying for all this repair and rebuild, right??

Build Back Better.

But seriously - the usage of this bridge is very low. Only 30,000 vehicles per day. By contrast, the nearby Ft. McHenry Tunnel is 116,000. Replacing it is a borderline pork barrel project. It's comical to see Pete Buttigieg out there making bold proclamations about replacing this bridge when that same mouth talks about reducing greenhouses gasses every other day.

Here is a good history of this bridge:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html

This website has been up since about 1998.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Build Back Better.

But seriously - the usage of this bridge is very low. Only 30,000 vehicles per day. By contrast, the nearby Ft. McHenry Tunnel is 116,000. Replacing it is a borderline pork barrel project. It's comical to see Pete Buttigieg out there making bold proclamations about replacing this bridge when that same mouth talks about reducing greenhouses gasses every other day.

Here is a good history of this bridge:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html

This website has been up since about 1998.

I love Pete, he's one of the most accomplished and highly qualified guys out there.

Aren't many of the vehicles that use the bridge, trucks that cannot use the tunnels due to the types of cargo they carry?

There's nothing comical about replacing critical infrastructure and wanting to reduce greenhouse gasses at the same time. What's comical, in a tragic way, are Republicans blaming DEI and open borders for the bridge collapse.

[UrbanImpact]

The new I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, that was previously also a victim of collapse, was lit up in Maryland colors last night
https://www.fox5dc.com/video/1431640

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Build Back Better.

But seriously - the usage of this bridge is very low. Only 30,000 vehicles per day. By contrast, the nearby Ft. McHenry Tunnel is 116,000. Replacing it is a borderline pork barrel project. It's comical to see Pete Buttigieg out there making bold proclamations about replacing this bridge when that same mouth talks about reducing greenhouses gasses every other day.

Here is a good history of this bridge:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html

This website has been up since about 1998.

you go on playa, but i’m not driving through those tunnels squeezed with oversized or hazardous materials vehicles.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

you go on playa, but i’m not driving through those tunnels squeezed with oversized or hazardous materials vehicles.

I believe there is only 1 road tunnel in the USA that allows hazardous materials to travel through, the Eisenhower Tunnel in Colorado.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

I love Pete, he's one of the most accomplished and highly qualified guys out there.

Aren't many of the vehicles that use the bridge, trucks that cannot use the tunnels due to the types of cargo they carry?

There's nothing comical about replacing critical infrastructure and wanting to reduce greenhouse gasses at the same time.

I'm trying to find a list of the busiest interstate highway bridges in the United States and I'm not seeing this bridge, with its paltry 30,000 vehicles, anywhere on them. It might not rank in the top 1,000 busiest bridges:
https://artbabridgereport.org/state/ranking/top-bridges

It's had 50~ years to build up its own ecosystem but has failed to do so.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

you go on playa, but i’m not driving through those tunnels squeezed with oversized or hazardous materials vehicles.

Baltimore has a loop. They'll just go around the north side of the city now.

BTW, your cell phone and laptop and anything with a lithium ion battery in it is technically hazardous.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Baltimore has a loop. They'll just go around the north side of the city now.

BTW, your cell phone and laptop and anything with a lithium ion battery in it is technically hazardous.

obviously the dot is concerned about hazardous bulk material trucking, explosive, radioactive materials and stuff like that, not personal items like bic lighters & iphones. and just as obviously there are other routes, but the point is attempts to take the speedier tunnels by vehicles that shouldn’t be in there will be a chronic problem.

[Notonfoodstamps]

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...nt-03-05-2024/

Preliminary proposal is officially being submitted to MTA on May 7th by WeBuild for a 65m high, 700m main span Cable Stayed bridge.

[Busy Bee]

A tad generic, but should look beautiful.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

A tad generic, but should look beautiful.

MDTA wants this bridge completed by fall of 2028

That proposal would be 50% larger than the next largest cable-stayed bridge in the US (Harbor Bridge Project in Corpus Christi) if you don't count the joint Canada/US venture Gordie Howe bridge.

This is a huge engineering undertaking and there are only so many ways you can design a cable-stayed bridge this size, over open water and under the timeline requirements needed.

[Prahaboheme]

Quite graceful, actually. While the cable-stay bridges are commonplace these days, this one would really be a sight to behold.

[Steely Dan]

Gorgeous design for that proposed replacement bridge!

I love the slender and sleek lightness of the towers.

With a main span of 2,300', It would be the 2nd longest cable-stayed span in North America, by far, after only the nearly complete Gordie Howe Bridge in Detroit (2,800' main span). And if built, it would be one of only 16 North American bridges of any type with a main span >2,000'.

BUILD IT!

BUILD IT NOW!



Source: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...nt-03-05-2024/

[Notonfoodstamps]

https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/07...l-renaissance/

So WeBuild did in fact submit their initial pro-bono proposal (a-blight modified to 4 lanes vs. 6) to the official RFP

No surprise, since they built the cable-stayed replacement for the Gerald Desmond Bridge in Los Angeles that opened recently.

[Busy Bee]

Good news.

4 lanes is perfectly adequate. Perhaps it could be engineered to bolt on outer laneways for a total of six 40 years down the read if that need ever arose?

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Good news.

4 lanes is perfectly adequate. Perhaps it could be engineered to bolt on outer laneways for a total of six 40 years down the read if that need ever arose?

The carrying capacity of the original bridge was something like 70-80k cars a day vs. the current ~33k usage so probably not.

Cable-stayed bridges almost exclusively use pre-cast concrete segments for the road deck so modifying them post completion is nigh on impossible.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Gorgeous design for that proposed replacement bridge!

I love the slender and sleek lightness of the towers.

With a main span of 2,300', It would be the 2nd longest cable-stayed span in North America, by far, after only the nearly complete Gordie Howe Bridge in Detroit (2,800' main span). And if built, it would be one of only 16 North American bridges of any type with a main span >2,000'.

BUILD IT!

BUILD IT NOW!



Source: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...nt-03-05-2024/

This proposal looks like the Ravenel Bridge in Charleston, SC, which is a very striking bridge!