Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

Really? There's an absolutely massive amount of twisted steel and concrete submerged in 50 feet of water. They'll have to cut the debris into pieces under water, bring in giant cranes to lift them up and out, put them on boats and haul them somewhere (where?). I think you're really underestimating how much work this will be.

Shaped charges would do the trick pretty quickly, no? They don't need to recover portions of the bridge intact since it is quite obvious why it collapsed.

No concerns about shaped charges and the environmental health of the Bay?

Why would there be? Yes, C4 is toxic, but it wouldn't take that much.

There is no telling how much asbestos and lead were used in the construction of that bridge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also wonder what kind of bridge will replace it. Is there a better type? Will it be higher? Fancier in design to be an iconic replacement?

Newer bridges have "fenders" and are also designed so that if a section falls, the other sections will stay in tact.

Outmoded bridge design likely contributed to catastrophic loss in Baltimore
After a Florida bridge collapse tragedy, bridges were required to be built with protective “fenders” — but not until the 1990s. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/27/baltimore-bridge-design-fender-00149398

Why did Francis Scott Key bridge collapse so catastrophically? It didn't stand a chance. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/03/26/francis-scott-key-bridge-didnt-stand-chance/73103213007/

"modern bridges are typically designed so a small failure in one area doesn’t "propagate" to the entire bridge"

Anonymous wrote:This was a good take by a shipping expert.

https://slate.com/business/2024/03/baltimore-bridge-collapse-francis-scott-key-maryland-deaths.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New bridge will probably be cable-stayed or suspension with 215 ft of clearance and a longer main span (i.e. towers/pylons w/fenders further from main shipping channel). New bridge will also likely be wider with 6 lanes.

What would be the point of having more clearance than the Bay Bridge?

Anonymous wrote:New bridge will probably be cable-stayed or suspension with 215 ft of clearance and a longer main span (i.e. towers/pylons w/fenders further from main shipping channel). New bridge will also likely be wider with 6 lanes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

Really? There's an absolutely massive amount of twisted steel and concrete submerged in 50 feet of water. They'll have to cut the debris into pieces under water, bring in giant cranes to lift them up and out, put them on boats and haul them somewhere (where?). I think you're really underestimating how much work this will be.

Shaped charges would do the trick pretty quickly, no? They don't need to recover portions of the bridge intact since it is quite obvious why it collapsed.

No concerns about shaped charges and the environmental health of the Bay?

Why would there be? Yes, C4 is toxic, but it wouldn't take that much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

Really? There's an absolutely massive amount of twisted steel and concrete submerged in 50 feet of water. They'll have to cut the debris into pieces under water, bring in giant cranes to lift them up and out, put them on boats and haul them somewhere (where?). I think you're really underestimating how much work this will be.

Shaped charges would do the trick pretty quickly, no? They don't need to recover portions of the bridge intact since it is quite obvious why it collapsed.

No concerns about shaped charges and the environmental health of the Bay?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i just read that it will take a year to clear the harbor and 10 years to rebuild the bridge.

None of this is simple.

For comments like this, it would be useful if you could identify the source where you “just read” something, even if you don’t provide any supporting details. So far I’ve read things online from maritime sources and from people quoting random other people posting on FB or Yahoo. The credibility of the sources is not the same.

It’s hard to know exactly how long it will take to “clear the harbor” although credible sources (see what I mean?) that I’ve read are talking “weeks” to get the shipping channel navigable. Similarly, funding and resources haven’t been nailed down re: rebuilding the bridge, and I haven’t seen anything yet about assessments to determine if what’s left of the current bridge can be reused in some way — which would impact any timeframes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i just read that it will take a year to clear the harbor and 10 years to rebuild the bridge.

None of this is simple.

For comments like this, it would be useful if you could identify the source where you “just read” something, even if you don’t provide any supporting details. So far I’ve read things online from maritime sources and from people quoting random other people posting on FB or Yahoo. The credibility of the sources is not the same.

It’s hard to know exactly how long it will take to “clear the harbor” although credible sources (see what I mean?) that I’ve read are talking “weeks” to get the shipping channel navigable. Similarly, funding and resources haven’t been nailed down re: rebuilding the bridge, and I haven’t seen anything yet about assessments to determine if what’s left of the current bridge can be reused in some way — which would impact any timeframes.

The President has guaranteed full federal responsibility for the cost of replacing the bridge, I saw that on TV. And while he also referenced expectation of Congressional support, there are already funds available to begin the project under the already passed infrastructure bill that includes a fund for bridge repair/replacement. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-opens-applications-over-9-billion-funding-modernize

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i just read that it will take a year to clear the harbor and 10 years to rebuild the bridge.

None of this is simple.

For comments like this, it would be useful if you could identify the source where you “just read” something, even if you don’t provide any supporting details. So far I’ve read things online from maritime sources and from people quoting random other people posting on FB or Yahoo. The credibility of the sources is not the same.

It’s hard to know exactly how long it will take to “clear the harbor” although credible sources (see what I mean?) that I’ve read are talking “weeks” to get the shipping channel navigable. Similarly, funding and resources haven’t been nailed down re: rebuilding the bridge, and I haven’t seen anything yet about assessments to determine if what’s left of the current bridge can be reused in some way — which would impact any timeframes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i just read that it will take a year to clear the harbor and 10 years to rebuild the bridge.

None of this is simple.

Two out three observations are wrong. Time to clear the harbor will depend on how far away the necessary equipment is and that might be the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea. Probably two to three weeks to open the harbor when it's in place.

The bridge will depend on whether or not the foundational supports are intact and can be reused. If so, it shouldn't take but a year or so. If not, two. Ten is ridiculous, unless the gubbernmint screws the whole thing up.

None of this is simple, true.

I have no background in construction or engineering, and I know bridges are wildly different than highways. But weren’t the recent highway collapses in Philly and Florida predicted to take a significant time and then were super short? Combination of eliminating government red tape and collaboration among contractors to get it done?

Not that I expect a bridge to be built in a month, but I do look forward with hope that there’s a way to expedite clean up and rebuilding in a way that brings us all some pride that we got it done faster than 10 years.

I also wonder what kind of bridge will replace it. Is there a better type? Will it be higher? Fancier in design to be an iconic replacement?

Anonymous wrote:I also wonder what kind of bridge will replace it. Is there a better type? Will it be higher? Fancier in design to be an iconic replacement?