President Biden has said the US government would cover the entire cost of rebuilding the bridge
As this is Interstate 695, is this not a Federal Highway expense anyway ? It sounds like Biden was implying they were helping out Maryland, or Baltimore City.
The USA does seem particularly liable to this sort of event, multiple occurrences before, including on inland waterways, where river vessels have taken out bridges, one some years ago in Alabama just ahead of a passenger train, which plunged into the water.
President Biden has said the US government would cover the entire cost of rebuilding the bridge
As this is Interstate 695, is this not a Federal Highway expense anyway ? It sounds like Biden was implying they were helping out Maryland, or Baltimore City.
Despite having interstate shields (purely for route continuity), legally the FSK Bridge is Maryland State Route 695, and is under the auspices of the MDTA and Maryland State Highway Administration. Similar situations exist all over the USA where interstate shields are provided but the road is not legally recognised as such.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
WHBM wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:36
The USA does seem particularly liable to this sort of event, multiple occurrences before, including on inland waterways, where river vessels have taken out bridges, one some years ago in Alabama just ahead of a passenger train, which plunged into the water.
Given how the railroads here are run, especially these days, I suppose it's a bit of a miracle that that incident has remained the deadliest accident in Amtrak's history.
Probably busy documenting grade crossings in the southeastern United States.
President Biden has said the US government would cover the entire cost of rebuilding the bridge
As this is Interstate 695, is this not a Federal Highway expense anyway ? It sounds like Biden was implying they were helping out Maryland, or Baltimore City.
Despite having interstate shields (purely for route continuity), legally the FSK Bridge is Maryland State Route 695, and is under the auspices of the MDTA and Maryland State Highway Administration. Similar situations exist all over the USA where interstate shields are provided but the road is not legally recognised as such.
Interesting. When the 1994 Northridge earthquake struck in Los Angeles (which I had more than a passing acquaintance with - past posts refer), the following day the California governor announced the fallen bridges as "on INTERSTATE 5", and "on INTERSTATE 10", pausing for effect after each mention of INTERSTATE. Nobody in LA ever referred to them as such, they are always the "Golden state Freeway", or comparable official names. A message was being sent to Washington. I presume although within the city these are mainstream routes.
I saw some notes from Twitter that the port authorities and marine engineers strongly advised for a tunnel instead of a bridge, because of the risk of collision (heightened because of the curves and the placement in relation to the Port). Cost-cutting meant they chose a bridge instead of a tunnel. The original construction cost was about $300m in today's money but surely a replacement will be 10x that.
Interestingly the US Navy insists that its ports' access to open sea is never crossed by bridges for this reason. This is why the New York Battery Tunnel is not a bridge (Brooklyn Naval Yards?) and the Chesapeake Bay crossings are combined bridges/tunnels.
ChrisH wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:27
I saw some notes from Twitter that the port authorities and marine engineers strongly advised for a tunnel instead of a bridge, because of the risk of collision (heightened because of the curves and the placement in relation to the Port). Cost-cutting meant they chose a bridge instead of a tunnel. The original construction cost was about $300m in today's money but surely a replacement will be 10x that.
Interestingly the US Navy insists that its ports' access to open sea is never crossed by bridges for this reason. This is why the New York Battery Tunnel is not a bridge (Brooklyn Naval Yards?) and the Chesapeake Bay crossings are combined bridges/tunnels.
There's apparently former earthworks that hinted at tunnel approach roads all around the FSK site, but the later widenings of MD-695 obliterated most of it.
The story behind the Battery Tunnel is fascinating - Robert Moses vehemently opposed a tunnel, and I think in the end Congress had to force the issue. Risks to shipping were also the reason the Mersey has tunnels instead of bridges over it despite the astronomical costs and engineering challenges digging the Queensway faced in the 1930s.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
WHBM wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:36
As this is Interstate 695, is this not a Federal Highway expense anyway ? It sounds like Biden was implying they were helping out Maryland, or Baltimore City.
Despite having interstate shields (purely for route continuity), legally the FSK Bridge is Maryland State Route 695, and is under the auspices of the MDTA and Maryland State Highway Administration. Similar situations exist all over the USA where interstate shields are provided but the road is not legally recognised as such.
Interesting. When the 1994 Northridge earthquake struck in Los Angeles (which I had more than a passing acquaintance with - past posts refer), the following day the California governor announced the fallen bridges as "on INTERSTATE 5", and "on INTERSTATE 10", pausing for effect after each mention of INTERSTATE. Nobody in LA ever referred to them as such, they are always the "Golden state Freeway", or comparable official names. A message was being sent to Washington. I presume although within the city these are mainstream routes.
Yes, quite clearly political posturing but it paid off - of course it always helped that Caltrans had superbly expert rapid rebuild contractors (Myers iirc) at the time who also could get these roads up and running again. The interesting thing about the collapse at Newhall Pass is the same flyover fell over in the 1971 earthquake as well.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
As I mentioned earlier, could the design of the FSK bridge that failed in a spectacular fashion immediately after it was struck by the huge container ship be in itself inherently unsafe?
There seems to be many road and rail bridges throughout the USA built during the 20th Century of a relatively similar design to the FSK bridge and I wonder - deterioration due to ageing, corrosion and inadequate maintenance issues notwithstanding - will they need to be re-evaluated in terms of their inherent safety and be replaced?
Would cost-cutting have been a factor in the FSK bridge design that contributed to the rapid collapse? I presume this will be addressed in the inquest into the tragedy.
A bridge would have had a lower cost than a tunnel 47 (?) years ago. Now the reverse will probably be true. However, the approach roads, and side-spans that remain intact, will negate the argument for replacement by a tunnel.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:57
Yes, quite clearly political posturing but it paid off - of course it always helped that Caltrans had superbly expert rapid rebuild contractors (Myers iirc) at the time who also could get these roads up and running again. The interesting thing about the collapse at Newhall Pass is the same flyover fell over in the 1971 earthquake as well.
Bit off topic, but I regret to report that "Old Man Myers" (as Clinton Myers was sometimes known, otherwise "C.C.") died just a few weeks ago. His obituary describes a number of his classic projects.
Long ago and far away I nearly got a job there, when he was just starting up his mainstream company. Didn't meet him though. Didn't know that "C.C." never did any civil engineering academic study, but "came up from the tools".
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:57
Yes, quite clearly political posturing but it paid off - of course it always helped that Caltrans had superbly expert rapid rebuild contractors (Myers iirc) at the time who also could get these roads up and running again. The interesting thing about the collapse at Newhall Pass is the same flyover fell over in the 1971 earthquake as well.
May be posturing here for money as well given who the bridge is named for, the writer of the lyrics of the US National Anthem.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
ChrisH wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:27
I saw some notes from Twitter that the port authorities and marine engineers strongly advised for a tunnel instead of a bridge, because of the risk of collision (heightened because of the curves and the placement in relation to the Port). Cost-cutting meant they chose a bridge instead of a tunnel. The original construction cost was about $300m in today's money but surely a replacement will be 10x that.
Interestingly the US Navy insists that its ports' access to open sea is never crossed by bridges for this reason. This is why the New York Battery Tunnel is not a bridge (Brooklyn Naval Yards?) and the Chesapeake Bay crossings are combined bridges/tunnels.
There's apparently former earthworks that hinted at tunnel approach roads all around the FSK site, but the later widenings of MD-695 obliterated most of it.
The story behind the Battery Tunnel is fascinating - Robert Moses vehemently opposed a tunnel, and I think in the end Congress had to force the issue. Risks to shipping were also the reason the Mersey has tunnels instead of bridges over it despite the astronomical costs and engineering challenges digging the Queensway faced in the 1930s.
See also Tyne Tunnel. The Tyne at that point is only 300m wide. The old Forth Road Bridge crosses water 1820m wide.
Of course because the Tyne was heavily involved in ship building in the 1950s when the tunnel was built.
KeithW wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:05 The Tees normally has at least 5 tugs on standby with pilots being required for commercial vessels from the entrance to the river at the South Gare to the locks at the Tees Barrage.
The vessel was taken out by tugs into the main channel. It was released once there as it would be operating too fast for the tugs. The tugs were still operating when they saw the veseel was in trouble and they attempted to make best speed to assist but didn't get there in time.
Tugs are pretty useless with ships of this mass. If it's doing more than 4kn, they can barely keep up let along influence the direction.
ChrisH wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:27Interestingly the US Navy insists that its ports' access to open sea is never crossed by bridges for this reason. This is why the New York Battery Tunnel is not a bridge (Brooklyn Naval Yards?) and the Chesapeake Bay crossings are combined bridges/tunnels.
The story behind the Battery Tunnel is fascinating - Robert Moses vehemently opposed a tunnel, and I think in the end Congress had to force the issue. Risks to shipping were also the reason the Mersey has tunnels instead of bridges over it despite the astronomical costs and engineering challenges digging the Queensway faced in the 1930s.
The same is true at Dartford. I've read correspondence between the MOD and MOT from the early 1920s regarding the proposed crossing at Dartford, where the military absolutely refused a bridge because of the potential for enemy action to destroy it and thus close the Thames. This was just a few years after the end of WW1 and clearly the military establishment was still quite nervy.
They weren't overjoyed about a tunnel either, and the Port of London authority nearly prevented one by imposing incredibly overzealous requirements on its depth to permit dredging the river far below its natural level - but I think by the time the tunnel was actually being built in the 1930s they'd been overruled on that.
Interestingly looking at the shipping map a number of US Navy vessels appear to be stuck behind the collapsed bridge, though there's no indication on exactly what port those vessels normally dock at. So maybe the Navy had a point... https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/ho ... 62/zoom:15
tom66 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 22:43
Interestingly looking at the shipping map a number of US Navy vessels appear to be stuck behind the collapsed bridge, though there's no indication on exactly what port those vessels normally dock at. So maybe the Navy had a point... https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/ho ... 62/zoom:15
Of course they do. Any enemy attack along the lines of Pearl Harbour would only have to take down a bridge in front of the port to prevent the US fleet from putting to sea.
Reopening the harbour by recovery of the broken bridge sections should be a relatively straightforward operation - the pieces just need lifting and placing to one side by a floating crane of adequate capacity; the salvage industry has long experience of picking up sunken ships.
More challenging is design of a replacement bridge which avoids the issue which led to this, likely with long concrete guidance piers. There will also of course be consideration of all the other such bridges in the USA which are similarly exposed.
Contrary to much belief, tunnels and bridges are not simple exchangeable options, one for another (of course, the US media is saying the replacement should be a tunnel). Construction costs are inevitably a multiple of a bridge, and ground conditions are rarely as good as the Channel Tunnel experienced, running through easy chalk. Then there are continuing operating costs, provision of ventilation, fire protection and escapes, etc. In terms of loss of life, there have been far more serious fatal incidents in tunnels than on bridges.
WHBM wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 09:24
Reopening the harbour by recovery of the broken bridge sections should be a relatively straightforward operation - the pieces just need lifting and placing to one side by a floating crane of adequate capacity; the salvage industry has long experience of picking up sunken ships.
More challenging is design of a replacement bridge which avoids the issue which led to this, likely with long concrete guidance piers. There will also of course be consideration of all the other such bridges in the USA which are similarly exposed.
Contrary to much belief, tunnels and bridges are not simple exchangeable options, one for another (of course, the US media is saying the replacement should be a tunnel). Construction costs are inevitably a multiple of a bridge, and ground conditions are rarely as good as the Channel Tunnel experienced, running through easy chalk. Then there are continuing operating costs, provision of ventilation, fire protection and escapes, etc. In terms of loss of life, there have been far more serious fatal incidents in tunnels than on bridges.
The commentariat has had some bizarre takes all over this one, mostly conspiracy theories about how it's all a false flag because the idea that someone screwed up somewhere is too easy to comprehend for people on Twitter.
The obvious answer is a replacement bridge - but like with the Ponte Morandi they will need to build a completely new structure, recycling the approach viaducts will be fraught with its own challenges as the main collapse may have caused upset to the remaining sections anyway. People are saying a cable stayed bridge is likely but this isn't a guarantee.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
