Container Ship Struck Key Bridge in Baltimore, Bridge has Collapsed

[A&L_Ont]

4 hours 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.

 

4 hours ago, robmtx said:

 

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.

Thanks for sharing, as a non-local these explanations make sense.

[TeeRick]

21 hours 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).

It is possible that it makes sense from a bridge engineering point of view looking at the bedrock, currents, access, etc.  Who knows but the experts.  They built the new Tappan Zee Bridge (now Gov Mario Cuomo Bridge) next to the old one, which was then removed.

[alfaeric]

22 hours 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).

When you say "since" is that after the span went down or before?

 

If it was before, it makes more sense than not, since the connection remains open while the bridge is being built.  Now that the bridge is gone, I'm betting that they will revisit that, as it saves money to not move the road.

 

The Gordie Howe bridge vs Ambassador Bridge isn't at all about replacement, it was adding massive amounts of lanes and taking the control of the flow (read maintenance) away from certain people.  Canada really wants to expand the trade between Ontario and Michigan, so they have been pushing this the entire time- including paying for almost all of it (including the massive numbers of lawsuits the owners of the Ambassador Bridge filed to block the new bridge).

 

Given the access of the two bridges, I'm betting that the new span will take the gross majority of traffic once it's done.  I'm sure we will use it instead, as it's a far more direct access between I-75 in the US and 401 in Canada- should reduce delays when going deep into Michigan or into Ontario.

 

The FSK bridge isn't nearly that, so a new one isn't an addition, but a replacement.  And keeping the passage open used to be super important when building a new one.

[smokeybandit]

Just now, alfaeric said:

When you say "since" is that after the span went down or before?

 

Referring to the original quoted post about there being 14 options for the new bridge location. Since the original 14 were identified, they narrowed it down to using the existing location and just building a third span.

[alfaeric]

1 minute ago, smokeybandit said:

Referring to the original quoted post about there being 14 options for the new bridge location. Since the original 14 were identified, they narrowed it down to using the existing location and just building a third span.

So why would it be dumb to put a new span next to the old one?  I would rather have the old bridge open and usable while the new one was being built.

[smokeybandit]

Just now, alfaeric said:

So why would it be dumb to put a new span next to the old one?  I would rather have the old bridge open and usable while the new one was being built.

Because as I mentioned above, the bridge is the only option across the bay to get to eastern Maryland and is a huge bottleneck. They should have created a new bridge at a new location giving people alternatives to the single place to cross.

[alfaeric]

2 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Because as I mentioned above, the bridge is the only option across the bay to get to eastern Maryland and is a huge bottleneck. They should have created a new bridge at a new location giving people alternatives to the single place to cross.

So add a totally new highway and roads?  Cheaper to make the existing roads wider if that's really the core problem.

 

And when I look at a map, there's no other location where the land comes out a little into the river that makes any sense to span for access.  Where would it make more sense to put a bridge over the Patapasco River?

 

Unless you are talking the Potomac, which is a totally different discussion.

[smokeybandit]

Just now, alfaeric said:

So add a totally new highway and roads?  Cheaper to make the existing roads wider if that's really the core problem.

 

And when I look at a map, there's no other location where the land comes out a little into the river that makes any sense to span for access.  Where would it make more sense to put a bridge over the Patapasco River?

 

Unless you are talking the Potomac, which is a totally different discussion.

This is all related to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Annapolis, not the Key Bridge.

[alfaeric]

16 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

This is all related to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Annapolis, not the Key Bridge.

So a thread about the FSK bridge collapse and replacement isn’t about the FSK bridge. Confusing. 

[smokeybandit]

1 minute ago, alfaeric said:

So a thread about the FSK bridge collapse and replacement isn’t about the FSK bridge. Confusing. 

It started with discussion about if  increasing the clearance of the next Key Bridge would benefit the cruise industry, and that was no because the Bay Bridge is the same height, and that led into discussion of the new Bay Bridge.

[TPKeller]

2 hours ago, alfaeric said:

Confusing. 

 

It was immediately obvious that not everyone "caught" the slight addition of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in the discussion.  But it was a valid addition, as noted above, since the two bridges were the same height (air draft) that restricted the size of ships that could pass beneath.

As best I am aware, there has been no detailed information provided about a replacement for the Key Bridge, which just collapsed.

There has been years of discussion about adding capacity to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which is what these last few posts have been about.

Again, it's all relative here, because if they add spans without removing the current spans (which is the latest plan, I believe) then we will not see an increase in the size of ships that can sail from Baltimore.

I snagged this picture from a news web page report, it shows the location of the two bridges we are talking about.

Theron

Edited April 4 by TPKeller

[alfaeric]

Sorry, but it’s still confusing. The discussion moved from a bridge that has no choice but to be replaced to one of additional volume in a different place that eventually will need replacement.  
 

And since cruise ships represent a very small part of the shipping traffic, I don’t see a real need to add height on all bridges as a high priority.

 

 

[Ocean Boy]

13 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

 

And since cruise ships represent a very small part of the shipping traffic, I don’t see a real need to add height on all bridges as a high priority.

 

That part has had me confused also. Unless I am missing something, I don't foresee container ships going higher. Maybe longer or wider but higher would seem, in my mind anyway, to make them more unstable in storms.

[DragonOfTheSeas]

41 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

Sorry, but it’s still confusing. The discussion moved from a bridge that has no choice but to be replaced to one of additional volume in a different place that eventually will need replacement.  
 

And since cruise ships represent a very small part of the shipping traffic, I don’t see a real need to add height on all bridges as a high priority.

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

That part has had me confused also. Unless I am missing something, I don't foresee container ships going higher. Maybe longer or wider but higher would seem, in my mind anyway, to make them more unstable in storms.

 

While passenger vessels are not the main traffic at this port, they are still an important source of revenue for the area.  Hotels, restaurants, parking, gas, etc.

 

It does not make sense to build a new bridge without increasing the height. I know the other bridge is still a choke point.  However, there are already plans to replace that one. too.

 

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, DragonOfTheSeas said:

 

 

 

While passenger vessels are not the main traffic at this port, they are still an important source of revenue for the area.  Hotels, restaurants, parking, gas, etc.

 

It does not make sense to build a new bridge without increasing the height. I know the other bridge is still a choke point.  However, there are already plans to replace that one. too.

 

Cruise ships are a very small part of the $80 billion that the Port of Baltimore generates.  

 

And, from what I understand,  many of the plans to "replace" the Bay Bridge are not to replace it at all,  but to add additional lanes by building another bridge parallel to the two existing bridges,  so making that bridge higher still will not solve the problem for cruise ships. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Ocean Boy said:

That part has had me confused also. Unless I am missing something, I don't foresee container ships going higher. Maybe longer or wider but higher would seem, in my mind anyway, to make them more unstable in storms.

Cruise ships are mostly air,  and cargo ships consider air to be wasted volume.  If you add a 10' high deck to a cruise ship,  it will settle in the water maybe 2-3 inches, while if you add a 10' high layer of loaded containers to the top of a container ship,  it will settle in a foot or more. 

[Ocean Boy]

45 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Cruise ships are mostly air,  and cargo ships consider air to be wasted volume.  If you add a 10' high deck to a cruise ship,  it will settle in the water maybe 2-3 inches, while if you add a 10' high layer of loaded containers to the top of a container ship,  it will settle in a foot or more. 

What, approximately, would the larger fully loaded container ships need for vertical clearance under a bridge?

[chengkp75]

25 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

What, approximately, would the larger fully loaded container ships need for vertical clearance under a bridge?

Air drafts for ships are notoriously hard to find,  but I would think a ship like Dali would have one about 170 feet. That would be about the maximum for the Key bridge. 

[rafinmd]

54 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Air drafts for ships are notoriously hard to find,  but I would think a ship like Dali would have one about 170 feet. That would be about the maximum for the Key bridge. 

A semi-related question.  As far as I know most if not all container ships have the bridge aft with just a few containers behind.  Is there a reason the bride could be forward so a ship could get under certain bridges with a few less containers than normal (I sailed a container ship Montreal to Europe and had a big picture window one deck below the bridge with a panoramic view of two containers).

 

Thanks

Roy

[chengkp75]

If you look at the photos of the Dali,  you'll see that the bridge structure is about 1/3 back from the bow. Lots of container ships combine the engine room structure (and funnel) with the accommodation block and the bridge, to minimize the lost cargo space,  but having the bridge aft increases the "blind spot" ahead of the ship, from looking over the container stacks, to somewhere close to half a mile or so. So larger ships are now moving the bridge to where the Dali's is.  But whether the bridge is forward or aft, makes no difference to the height of the mast, which is the controlling factor.  Ships like this must have two "mast head lights" both visible all around and vertically spaced so they can be seen one above the other from a distance,  so even if you reduced the height of container stacks forward of the bridge,  and then lowered the bridge to just see over,  the after mast height still has to be higher than the container stacks aft.

[alfaeric]

5 hours ago, DragonOfTheSeas said:

 

 

 

While passenger vessels are not the main traffic at this port, they are still an important source of revenue for the area.  Hotels, restaurants, parking, gas, etc.

 

It does not make sense to build a new bridge without increasing the height. I know the other bridge is still a choke point.  However, there are already plans to replace that one. too.

 

Most people claim that Baltimore is a drive to port, and that a majority of them are within a few hours- meaning that hotels are maybe a few thousand single nights a week for all of the cruises.  Parking is something, sure.  Call it 3000 cars a week?  I would wager a bet that the parking for all of the brand new cars coming to the port is considerably larger.  

Not saying that cruise passengers are not important.  But I don't see them as being so important that Baltimore is going to go out of their way to fit a 4000 passenger ship in the port.

[Charles4515]

5 hours ago, DragonOfTheSeas said:

 

 

 

While passenger vessels are not the main traffic at this port, they are still an important source of revenue for the area.  Hotels, restaurants, parking, gas, etc.

 

It does not make sense to build a new bridge without increasing the height. I know the other bridge is still a choke point.  However, there are already plans to replace that one. too.

 

Cruise ships are a nice to have for Baltimore but a very minor source of revenue. Hotels, restaurants cater to Baltimore not cruise passengers and if the cruise port closed I don’t think hotels or restaurants would take much notice. I think most cruise passengers drive in to Baltimore and don’t stay at hotels or eat at restaurants. That is the impression I got from living 35 miles from the port for many years. It might make sense to build the bridge higher or it might not. Maryland can figure that out. The other bridge project is planned to be an additional bridge, the old would remain so unless that plan is changed building the Key Bridge higher would not allow for taller ships. 

Edited April 5 by Charles4515

[toad455]

I don't think the Vision left on time today out of Norfolk(5pm). Probably closer to 6:30pm. The Carnival Legend was also late leaving on Monday(~7pm).

[Jenna1983]

Port update 

 

[alfaeric]

Which suggests that the Vision will just have two cruises out of Norfolk.  Pretty amazing.