Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Just want to thank you for the link and recommend others read it. It put a lot of stuff into perspective for me and dispels some junk commentary floating around about certain aspects of the incident.
PP. Thank you, I’m an engineer and I found the context of the shipping industry very helpful. And I think he is right that the new bridge will be bigger and higher. I remember when the roadway on the Bayonne bridge in ny was raised to accommodate new Panamax ships. Those bigger ships became popular because the Panama Canal got new locks which allowed bigger boats. So what he is saying about the suez size constraint makes sense. Interesting read.
Raising the bridge won't change the size constraint because any ship coming into Baltimore needs to fit under the Bay Bridge.
Taxpayers paid almost $2 billion dollars to “raise” the Bayonne bridge. You don’t think new bridges that span harbors will be preemptively designed for larger ships?
I mean that’s great for those people but that doesn’t have anything to do with the Bay Bridge. I live in Stevensville in QAC and cross the bridge almost every day. Maryland just finished a several year study and expensive study on whether to replace the bridge or build a new bridge at 2 different sites and in the end decided to just keep the bridge as is. They are currently replacing the eastbound deck. They’re not raising the bridge, not in our lifetime.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/BayBridgeEastboundDeckReplacementProject
No one is saying that the car deck on the bay bridge will be raised. But the fact that other bridges in the us have been altered to allow larger ships to pass underneath, coupled with the fact that even bigger ships are likely in the pipeline means that cities will either plan to accommodate larger ships or suffer the economic consequences of losing business to a different city. Baltimore already has had to dredge because of the Panamax ships, I’m sure future ship size considerations is near the top of the list for planners of the replacement bridge.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still confused how the shipping container hit the pillars even if it did lose power…
There would be no control of the vessel, and the water has currents that push a ship about.
Why couldn’t the shipping container drop anchor and stay put in the middle of the river, until help could get to them? Why did they decide to just drift with no power, especially at night? That seems so reckless.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Just want to thank you for the link and recommend others read it. It put a lot of stuff into perspective for me and dispels some junk commentary floating around about certain aspects of the incident.
PP. Thank you, I’m an engineer and I found the context of the shipping industry very helpful. And I think he is right that the new bridge will be bigger and higher. I remember when the roadway on the Bayonne bridge in ny was raised to accommodate new Panamax ships. Those bigger ships became popular because the Panama Canal got new locks which allowed bigger boats. So what he is saying about the suez size constraint makes sense. Interesting read.
Raising the bridge won't change the size constraint because any ship coming into Baltimore needs to fit under the Bay Bridge.
Taxpayers paid almost $2 billion dollars to “raise” the Bayonne bridge. You don’t think new bridges that span harbors will be preemptively designed for larger ships?
I mean that’s great for those people but that doesn’t have anything to do with the Bay Bridge. I live in Stevensville in QAC and cross the bridge almost every day. Maryland just finished a several year study and expensive study on whether to replace the bridge or build a new bridge at 2 different sites and in the end decided to just keep the bridge as is. They are currently replacing the eastbound deck. They’re not raising the bridge, not in our lifetime.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/BayBridgeEastboundDeckReplacementProject
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still confused how the shipping container hit the pillars even if it did lose power…
There would be no control of the vessel, and the water has currents that push a ship about.
Why couldn’t the shipping container drop anchor and stay put in the middle of the river, until help could get to them? Why did they decide to just drift with no power, especially at night? That seems so reckless.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Just want to thank you for the link and recommend others read it. It put a lot of stuff into perspective for me and dispels some junk commentary floating around about certain aspects of the incident.
PP. Thank you, I’m an engineer and I found the context of the shipping industry very helpful. And I think he is right that the new bridge will be bigger and higher. I remember when the roadway on the Bayonne bridge in ny was raised to accommodate new Panamax ships. Those bigger ships became popular because the Panama Canal got new locks which allowed bigger boats. So what he is saying about the suez size constraint makes sense. Interesting read.
Raising the bridge won't change the size constraint because any ship coming into Baltimore needs to fit under the Bay Bridge.
Taxpayers paid almost $2 billion dollars to “raise” the Bayonne bridge. You don’t think new bridges that span harbors will be preemptively designed for larger ships?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still confused how the shipping container hit the pillars even if it did lose power…
There would be no control of the vessel, and the water has currents that push a ship about.
Why couldn’t the shipping container drop anchor and stay put in the middle of the river, until help could get to them? Why did they decide to just drift with no power, especially at night? That seems so reckless.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still confused how the shipping container hit the pillars even if it did lose power…
There would be no control of the vessel, and the water has currents that push a ship about.
Why couldn’t the shipping container drop anchor and stay put in the middle of the river, until help could get to them? Why did they decide to just drift with no power, especially at night? That seems so reckless.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still confused how the shipping container hit the pillars even if it did lose power…
There would be no control of the vessel, and the water has currents that push a ship about.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Just want to thank you for the link and recommend others read it. It put a lot of stuff into perspective for me and dispels some junk commentary floating around about certain aspects of the incident.
PP. Thank you, I’m an engineer and I found the context of the shipping industry very helpful. And I think he is right that the new bridge will be bigger and higher. I remember when the roadway on the Bayonne bridge in ny was raised to accommodate new Panamax ships. Those bigger ships became popular because the Panama Canal got new locks which allowed bigger boats. So what he is saying about the suez size constraint makes sense. Interesting read.
Raising the bridge won't change the size constraint because any ship coming into Baltimore needs to fit under the Bay Bridge.
Taxpayers paid almost $2 billion dollars to “raise” the Bayonne bridge. You don’t think new bridges that span harbors will be preemptively designed for larger ships?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Just want to thank you for the link and recommend others read it. It put a lot of stuff into perspective for me and dispels some junk commentary floating around about certain aspects of the incident.
PP. Thank you, I’m an engineer and I found the context of the shipping industry very helpful. And I think he is right that the new bridge will be bigger and higher. I remember when the roadway on the Bayonne bridge in ny was raised to accommodate new Panamax ships. Those bigger ships became popular because the Panama Canal got new locks which allowed bigger boats. So what he is saying about the suez size constraint makes sense. Interesting read.
Raising the bridge won't change the size constraint because any ship coming into Baltimore needs to fit under the Bay Bridge.
Taxpayers paid almost $2 billion dollars to “raise” the Bayonne bridge. You don’t think new bridges that span harbors will be preemptively designed for larger ships?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Just want to thank you for the link and recommend others read it. It put a lot of stuff into perspective for me and dispels some junk commentary floating around about certain aspects of the incident.
PP. Thank you, I’m an engineer and I found the context of the shipping industry very helpful. And I think he is right that the new bridge will be bigger and higher. I remember when the roadway on the Bayonne bridge in ny was raised to accommodate new Panamax ships. Those bigger ships became popular because the Panama Canal got new locks which allowed bigger boats. So what he is saying about the suez size constraint makes sense. Interesting read.
Raising the bridge won't change the size constraint because any ship coming into Baltimore needs to fit under the Bay Bridge.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Just want to thank you for the link and recommend others read it. It put a lot of stuff into perspective for me and dispels some junk commentary floating around about certain aspects of the incident.
PP. Thank you, I’m an engineer and I found the context of the shipping industry very helpful. And I think he is right that the new bridge will be bigger and higher. I remember when the roadway on the Bayonne bridge in ny was raised to accommodate new Panamax ships. Those bigger ships became popular because the Panama Canal got new locks which allowed bigger boats. So what he is saying about the suez size constraint makes sense. Interesting read.
Anonymous wrote: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
Just want to thank you for the link and recommend others read it. It put a lot of stuff into perspective for me and dispels some junk commentary floating around about certain aspects of the incident.
Anonymous wrote: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
Just want to thank you for the link and recommend others read it. It put a lot of stuff into perspective for me and dispels some junk commentary floating around about certain aspects of the incident.