Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was China, the bridge would be rebuilt by now.

Perhaps I say this in jest (probably more like a week or two rather than a few days) but watching the rebuilding will say a lot about America's capabilities. But I do have confidence the bridge will be rebuilt much faster than many are thinking.

When I-95 in Philadelphia collapsed everyone here was sure the incompetent government would take years to fix it. It ended up being about 3 weeks.

Bridges are obviously projects that take years, not weeks, but so far it seems like all of the right people and organizations are dedicated to rebuilding this as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Sometimes it's OK to not assume the worst.

That's a half-truth. It wasn't fixed. They backfilled the underpass to get it open quickly. The real fix will take much longer.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/heavily-traveled-i-95-is-set-to-reopen-less-than-two-weeks-after-deadly-collapse-in-philadelphia

Anonymous wrote:If this was China, the bridge would be rebuilt by now.

Perhaps I say this in jest (probably more like a week or two rather than a few days) but watching the rebuilding will say a lot about America's capabilities. But I do have confidence the bridge will be rebuilt much faster than many are thinking.

When I-95 in Philadelphia collapsed everyone here was sure the incompetent government would take years to fix it. It ended up being about 3 weeks.

Bridges are obviously projects that take years, not weeks, but so far it seems like all of the right people and organizations are dedicated to rebuilding this as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Sometimes it's OK to not assume the worst.

Anonymous wrote:If this was China, the bridge would be rebuilt by now.

Perhaps I say this in jest (probably more like a week or two rather than a few days) but watching the rebuilding will say a lot about America's capabilities. But I do have confidence the bridge will be rebuilt much faster than many are thinking.

Were. Subjunctive.

I don't think people are suggesting they raise or rebuild the bay bridge.
But it's reasonable to think long-term with the bridge and perhaps build the key bridge taller. Then, at some point in the future when the bay bridge does need to be replaced, the new key bridge will already be higher.
If you keep building to the lowest height, it will just be a vicious circle that will never increase.

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.

Commentary isn't by default "junk". It is ok for people to share educated conjecture. Every post does not need a link.

Hahahha. Waaayyyy too many lawyers in this area and on this board. Just let it go and stop being a lawyer for a few minutes.

Search for your own link, maybe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly. No matter how high they make it you can't get out to the ocean without getting under the bay bridge which is only 1 foot taller.

Time for MD to think big and plan for the future. Make Baltimore truly competitive by making the port accessible to Panamax ships. Raise the clearance of the new Key Bridge to 215 ft. And since the state is already planning a third span of the Bay Bridge, design a new wider span down there (8 lanes) with the same clearance of 215 ft — rendering the old bridges unnecessary and allowing for their removal.

MD won’t get another chance like this for a few generations.

Is there sufficient capacity at the port? They aren't making more land if you raise the bridge. It would also be necessary to dredge deeper channels. The draft of the Panamax is right at the current channel depth.

If this was China, the bridge would be rebuilt by now.

Perhaps I say this in jest (probably more like a week or two rather than a few days) but watching the rebuilding will say a lot about America's capabilities. But I do have confidence the bridge will be rebuilt much faster than many are thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Carriers that go underneath the Key Bridge also have to go under the CBB. I’m sure they did consider a taller bridge but last year decided to keep what they have. What part isn’t clear? And this ship didn’t hit the bridge because it was too tall.

Ok, let’s see.

So when there is a boat that is considered vulnerable re height there are restrictions when it can go under CBB. Each bridge that goes under needs permission and it is monitored on the AA County side. Things like such as tide come into play. 2 years ago a HUGE crane had to sit in front of my house for almost a week because the tide and water levels kept changing and it couldn't get permission to pass and make it's way to the Baltimore port. The kind of crane that is used to offload containers from ships like these. And they didn't just let it pass when there was just "enough room" . They also closed both spans of the bridge before it was allowed to go.

I am just bewildered by posters on here who have no clue how this Bay system works.

boat

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Carriers that go underneath the Key Bridge also have to go under the CBB. I’m sure they did consider a taller bridge but last year decided to keep what they have. What part isn’t clear? And this ship didn’t hit the bridge because it was too tall.

Ok, let’s see.

So when there is a boat that is considered vulnerable re height there are restrictions when it can go under CBB. Each bridge that goes under needs permission and it is monitored on the AA County side. Things like such as tide come into play. 2 years ago a HUGE crane had to sit in front of my house for almost a week because the tide and water levels kept changing and it couldn't get permission to pass and make it's way to the Baltimore port. The kind of crane that is used to offload containers from ships like these. And they didn't just let it pass when there was just "enough room" . They also closed both spans of the bridge before it was allowed to go.

I am just bewildered by posters on here who have no clue how this Bay system works.

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

Well, it’s time for the state to revisit this and invest in a plan that would provide enormous economic opportunities for Baltimore and the entire state.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly. No matter how high they make it you can't get out to the ocean without getting under the bay bridge which is only 1 foot taller.

Time for MD to think big and plan for the future. Make Baltimore truly competitive by making the port accessible to Panamax ships. Raise the clearance of the new Key Bridge to 215 ft. And since the state is already planning a third span of the Bay Bridge, design a new wider span down there (8 lanes) with the same clearance of 215 ft — rendering the old bridges unnecessary and allowing for their removal.

MD won’t get another chance like this for a few generations.

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

Infrastructure isn’t built for our lifetimes. If you think otherwise there’s a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

Lol let’s raise a bridge that is tall enough. 😜

Are u guys this stupid.

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

Infrastructure isn’t built for our lifetimes. If you think otherwise there’s a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Carriers that go underneath the Key Bridge also have to go under the CBB. I’m sure they did consider a taller bridge but last year decided to keep what they have. What part isn’t clear? And this ship didn’t hit the bridge because it was too tall.

Ok, let’s see.

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.

Carriers that go underneath the Key Bridge also have to go under the CBB. I’m sure they did consider a taller bridge but last year decided to keep what they have. What part isn’t clear? And this ship didn’t hit the bridge because it was too tall.