Jump to content

Container Ship Struck Key Bridge in Baltimore, Bridge has Collapsed


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TPKeller said:

 

Wow, I hadn't heard about that one before.  Wikipedia confirms the span length, but also reports that the clearance is only 138 feet.  So if that lower clearance (Key bridge was 185) is inherent to the design, it may not be the best choice.

 

Theron


Clearance would not be a problem.  It is just a function of setting the clearance you want at the main channel and transitioning to the approach elevations.  
 

If you want to see a cable-stayed bridge with lots of clearance, look up Millau Viaduct in Southern France.  Just over 1100 feet under clear on that one. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:


The Windsor bridge is a few hours away from me.  I follow a guy on Instagram who frequently posts photos of the work. Below are some of of his latest shots.
 

I left his info on the screen shots if anyone wants to follow his account.  Unlike Baltimore this bridge isn’t being constructed in a “hurried” fashion. 
 

 

 

IMG_3520.thumb.jpeg.a20cb311d00e3773b3ffb23207b62fb4.jpeg

 

IMG_3519.thumb.jpeg.25d6190849a6040f7fd450fa0685b496.jpeg


Thanks for those links, Andrew.  They are a little behind their original schedule.  It was to open this year, but not till 2025 now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, h20skibum said:

If you want to see a cable-stayed bridge with lots of clearance, look up Millau Viaduct in Southern France.  Just over 1100 feet under clear on that one. 

 

🙂 Amazing bridge!  According to Wiki, an 890 foot clearance.  The 1,104 foot height is the top of the structure.

And to be fair, this one crosses a valley that drops out in the middle, not water, which is flat all the way, so several hundred feet of that clearance is kind of "free," or at least cheaper than rising that high over water.

 

Theron

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, h20skibum said:


Thanks for those links, Andrew.  They are a little behind their original schedule.  It was to open this year, but not till 2025 now. 


They are close. This was a month ago. 
 

IMG_3525.thumb.jpeg.329bdb7544b79eef7f3976596c65da22.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, h20skibum said:


They started work on that bridge in July, 2018.

Six years to build a bridge? Well, I guess if the Brooklyn Bridge took 14 years then this one is moving right along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

Six years to build a bridge? Well, I guess if the Brooklyn Bridge took 14 years then this one is moving right along.


Seven years.  It will not be done till 2025, but they say Covid delayed the finish by 10 months. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, h20skibum said:


Seven years.  It will not be done till 2025, but they say Covid delayed the finish by 10 months. 

 

That makes sense. Add to that the purchase the land on each side of the bridge, zoning etc...

 

Who knows what type of permits they need for a structure that is built in 2 different countries and how long that would have taken.  It is rather interesting thinking about it, as a person not associated with this type of job.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2024 at 4:05 PM, boscobeans said:

Depending on the size of the debris, which can also be reduced. a dredge could clear the rubble.

 

dredge.jpg

 

Yes, but reducing the size of the debris UNDER WATER is not trivial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TeeRick said:

Found this project to increase the clearance of the Suspension Bridge near Savanah, GA to be quite interesting.

 

https://apnews.com/article/savannah-suspension-bridge-georgia-south-carolina-49440d932d0abcff20351a6fac33620d

 

 

They did the same thing for the Bayonne Bridge in NJ

https://www.portbreakingwaves.com/raising-of-the-bayonne-bridge-one-year-anniversary/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the clearance of the Francis Scott Key bridge, is that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is (also) limited to 185ft so I'm not sure if they will be raising the collapsed bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, exm said:

The problem with the clearance of the Francis Scott Key bridge, is that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is (also) limited to 185ft so I'm not sure if they will be raising the collapsed bridge.

Since they have to replace the Key bridge they could build it higher with the future in mind. As for the Chesapeake Bay bridge the replacing it has been approved. There are 14 options on the table. Since projects to rebuild both bridges are now on the table future proofing both bridges should be done. If Bayonne has done 215 feet wouldn’t Baltimore want to match that to compete?

Edited by Charles4515
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, exm said:

The problem with the clearance of the Francis Scott Key bridge, is that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is (also) limited to 185ft so I'm not sure if they will be raising the collapsed bridge.


If they are approaching it responsibly, they will be looking at the needs in the future.  Since bridges are being built for 100+ years life span, they need to look to the future. 
 

Increasing clearances on CBB may need to be addressed at some point.  Ships will continue to increase in size.  Just look at the changes in the past 100 years that resulted in new locks in the Panama Canal to accommodate larger ships.  
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Since they have to replace the Key bridge they could build it higher with the future in mind. As for the Chesapeake Bay bridge the replacing it has been approved. There are 14 options on the table. Since projects to rebuild both bridges are now on the table future proofing both bridges should be done. If Bayonne has done 215 feet wouldn’t Baltimore want to match that to compete?

They've since decided the new span will be built next to the existing ones (which is really dumb, but, it's Maryland so no surprise).

Edited by smokeybandit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

They've since decided the new span will be built next to the existing ones (which is really dumb, but, it's Maryland so no surprise).



If it needs to go from A to B, why wouldn’t they build the new one beside the old one which already has infrastructure on land.  That’s what Florida did in the 80s.

 

IMG_3529.thumb.jpeg.8685256136d83f90cbeb6368e8c3d025.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:



If it needs to go from A to B, why wouldn’t they build the new one beside the old one which already has infrastructure on land.  That’s what Florida did in the 80s.

 

IMG_3529.thumb.jpeg.8685256136d83f90cbeb6368e8c3d025.jpeg

Because that is the only route to the eastern shore of Maryland. Adding a new bridge doesn't alleviate that bottleneck. Other proposals had a completely different location providing an alternate route. But it got NIMBY'd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Because that is the only route to the eastern shore of Maryland. Adding a new bridge doesn't alleviate that bottleneck. Other proposals had a completely different location providing an alternate route. But it got NIMBY'd.

 

Yep we were hoping for a location that didn't go thru Kent Island.. So then we'd have multiple options for crossing the bay.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, exm said:

The problem with the clearance of the Francis Scott Key bridge, is that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is (also) limited to 185ft so I'm not sure if they will be raising the collapsed bridge.

 

Is the Chesapeake Bay Bridge really a limitation on what serves Baltimore?  The two channels over the tunnels should be able to accommodate larger cruise ships.... charts show 45 ft drafts on the south tunnel, and 50 ft on the middle tunnel. 

Duh.  Disregard.... I forgot about the bridge at Annapolis with almost the same name as the CBBT.....

 

 

Edited by Lane Hog
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Lane Hog said:

Duh.  Disregard.... I forgot about the bridge at Annapolis with almost the same name as the CBBT....

 

They are deceptively similar!!

 

Theron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...