Container Ship strikes and collapses Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Asher said:
I wonder what this accident is going to create as far as more terrorist prevention.
Click to expand...
Since this had nothing to do with terrorism, I don't see anything beyond protecting piers better coming out of it.

Incidentally I just noticed that this bridge had the tiniest of tiny dolphins to protect the piers. The cynic in me says that they were put in at some point to meet the absolute minimum requirements to get the rating that it is a protected bridge, which rating surprisingly it had. Apparently not protected well enough though.
 
west point said:
Maritime law is going rear its ugly head. Everyone is going to loose money.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...S&cvid=9d2b031bb2444c20a13d846a7d1505ad&ei=15
Click to expand...
I expect the Feds and the state of Maryland to pony up a lot of the costs of this. They certainly will front the cost to get the bridge rebuilt. These things were built with government money initially and would be upgraded with government money regardless. That said the insurers for the ship will likely end up paying for a significant percentage of it whenever the claim is adjudicated. Fortunately, only a handful of people died so the human level of claims should be tended to fairly quickly. 695 is an Interstate and thus falls under Federal jurisdiction so I imagine the appropriate elected in Maryland will file a supplemental appropriation to get the ball rolling (theoretically). The question is whether Congress will authorize at least some money beyond clearing the Bay and reopening the harbor. Unlike say the East Palestine OH rail disaster that involved privately owned and managed infrastructure, these bridges are publicly owned so there is going to be an expectation for DOT to take the lead on rebuilding. What is the final total the insureds pay towards rebuilding is anyone's guess and I wouldn't expect any of that money for a few years. It may come as no surprise to some but there is only a couple of pots of money in maritime insurance. I am casually familiar with maritime insurance about claims for ship-to-ship collisions and, gross negligence aside, they tend to only pay up to the value of the ship and the cargo. A publicly owned asset like a bridge is essentially self-insured. This brings us back to the original point that the DOT will begin to rebuild ASAP and we taxpayers can hope for reimbursement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/28/bal...est-ever-marine-insurance-payout-lloyds-.html

I am less worried about that but more worried that it will be used as a political football during appropriations in Congress. Congress just passed a continuing resolution that theoretically funds the government through Sept 30 however I have been told by people that I know that work in DC that they will most likely have to pass another supplemental in August to complete authorized expenses through FY24. Let alone FY25 being debated two months before an election with all of that going on. Good luck... o_O
 
Palmland said:
‘Trains’ Newswire today had an article on CSX rerouting traffic. Container traffic to NY ports and coal trains to Newport News coal piers. N. News can certainly handle it as traffic is way down from the days when CSX was considering the need to double track from Richmond. The old RF&P will be busy.
Click to expand...
Hope the busy RF&P doesn't muck up the Northeast Regional Richmond service or the Silvers, Carolinian, or Palmetto.
 
west point said:
Would we be surprised if the new bridge has a higher clearance than the Key bridge had?
Click to expand...
It had the same clearance, 185 ft., as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (Annapolis to the Eastern Shore), so there's no need.

Too bad tugboats had not been required. The place where the harbor pilots get on or off was just downriver from the bridge. Also, if it had blown or drifted off course a tad earlier, it would have run aground. These ships have a high profile to the wind.

I was interested in finding out about ferries in the days before the bridge was built, but either the state highway maps in the 1940s were less detailed than Virginia's, or the only ferries in the area were from Baltimore out to the Chesapeake Bay. There would have been plenty of boat traffic from the south point to the north point here, though. On one side was a steel mill, and on the other a shipyard. It built many ferries, among other vessels!

As for the politics, the Key's been called a working class bridge, and we have some similar tunnels and bridges in Hampton Roads, other than the main through corridors. The governor who brought back tolls on them caused an uproar, and add to that a Rolex from the tobacco settlement, and he would not have survived his next election, if he hadn't been term limited. The U.S. Supreme Court had a say about the Rolex, so that turned out OK for him. He also tried to reconfigure port finances, a giant pot of money. He had ideas, I'll give him that. The tunnels and bridges are better now.

Having spent a little time in neighborhoods like that in Baltimore, there and more central, Marylanders would be even crabbier than people in Virginia about their transportation links. Recall job longevity and family earning and commuting have changed since the 1970s, and people are "stuck with" commutes. Old cities have that certain intensity. The economy in general reminds me of that Bridget Jones movie title, "on the edge of reason." Logistics are still cattywampus from the pandemic.

The ship actually hit at the corner of Baltimore County, Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County.

It's a hassle that the transportation corridor makes a northeast turn at Baltimore, and freight rail is not on more of a bypass.
 
Here is an informative video about rebuilding the Key Bridge:



Listening to this it would appear that the Cable Stayed Box Girder Bridge might be the quickest and least expensive to build, but more studies are needed to come to final conclusions.

And here is some detailed info on bridge protection, how they are designed and built. We also learned that in the past the State of Maryland considered and decided not to build additional protection to bring the bridge upto modern standards due to projected costs.

 
Last edited:
west point said:
The ship owners and operators are trying to limit liability even to the extent that the accident has caused the ship to depreciate. IMO this just sucks if they are successful.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...TS&cvid=e0047e8c9c984ca29b69bc1b175a544e&ei=9
Click to expand...
Surprised that it took so long. I would filed paperwork when the courthouse opened that day. These practice are always questionable but it’s standard procedure for the ships and there insurance companies.
 
Just-Thinking-51 said:
Surprised that it took so long. I would filed paperwork when the courthouse opened that day. These practice are always questionable but it’s standard procedure for the ships and there insurance companies.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's time to revisit the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 and see if it's still accomplishing the original goal or perverting the course of justice. I realize these kinds of laws can be very difficult to change but mandating that infrastructure projects and maintenance plans need to include these liability protections in a catastrophic loss projection might help push the needle on future mitigation funding. In the same vein it might be wise to require states conform to modern compliance standards to receive the maximum federal disaster funding.
 
Last edited:
If the piers of a new bridge are way outside the main channel then these monster ships will run aground before they can hit the piers. However the secondary channels will definitely need protections of these piers from smaller ships that do not need the main channel..
 
west point said:
If the piers of a new bridge are way outside the main channel then these monster ships will run aground before they can hit the piers. However the secondary channels will definitely need protections of these piers from smaller ships that do not need the main channel..
Click to expand...
You can bet there will be a lot of large Dolphins built this time around to protect the hell out of the endangered piers. See the video in a previous post of mine. See those puny little Dolphins that this bridge had and weep.
 
Other ports are looking at the issue now, such as Philly. The same concerns are coming up for the four-mile long Chesapeake Bay Bridge (Annapolis to the Eastern Shore), with similar piers. CNN has a story, and in the Baltimore Banner (ex-Sun writers), an Eastern Shore county commissioner is squawking.
 
jis said:
You can bet there will be a lot of large Dolphins built this time around to protect the hell out of the endangered piers. See the video in a previous post of mine. See those puny little Dolphins that this bridge had and weep.
Click to expand...
Can we suspect that any new bridge will have piers way outside the present deep channel?. A cable stayed bridge piers can easily be outside the deep channel. But its piers will still need dolphins to protect from smaller ships.
 
An interesting history of the big crane being used, from the famous Cold War story of the Glomar Explorer raising a Soviet submarine: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-04/what-do-maryland-bridge-and-cia-have-in-common/103667276 An even bigger water-borne crane was used to build the new Tappan Zee Bridge, but the crane being used in Baltimore played a role there too, after a deadly accident with a tug: https://www.aol.com/largest-floating-crane-baltimore-bridge-144343592.html

Perhaps also of interest, Baltimore Water Taxi is due to start an Uber-like on-demand passenger ferry service this month: https://www.baltimorewatertaxi.com/ It won't help with the missing Key Bridge, I wouldn't imagine. New ferry services tend to be passenger-only, it seems, whether geared towards commuters or pleasure riders. Another one is proposed to hopscotch around the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, like a more spread out version of the NYC Ferry on the East River. The latter is not controlled by the MTA. Instead it's contracted by the city to a company called Hornblower.

The contrast with Virginia, for what it's worth, is that the Norfolk-Portsmouth passenger ferry is part of the regional bus system, and everybody's favorite crane probably wouldn't fit on a barge:
hammerhead_400w267h.png
 
jis said:
Since this had nothing to do with terrorism, I don't see anything beyond protecting piers better coming out of it.
Click to expand...
I think it has highlighted to terrorists across the world how easy it is to take down major infrastructure.

Civil navigation does not typically enjoy the same level of protection and security as does aviation, and malicious agents might be able to take control of a ship and intentionally cause such an incident, possibly even being able to escape unnoticed.
 
cirdan said:
I think it has highlighted to terrorists across the world how easy it is to take down major infrastructure.

Civil navigation does not typically enjoy the same level of protection and security as does aviation, and malicious agents might be able to take control of a ship and intentionally cause such an incident, possibly even being able to escape unnoticed.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's a possibility, but terrorists usually don't do things to "escape being noticed." Getting publicity for their cause is a more important objective. Even state actors who are doing such sabotage as legitimate acts of war, like the Ukrainians did with the Kerch Bridge, are quite open about what they are doing. In fact, the only scenario I can think of where someone might want to do this and escape being noticed would be if a competing port, like say, the port of Norfolk/Newport News, would want to take down the bridge to eliminate competition without taking the blame for the act. But that's ridiculous conspiracy theory nonsense.
 
MARC Rider said:
Sure, it's a possibility, but terrorists usually don't do things to "escape being noticed." Getting publicity for their cause is a more important objective. Even state actors who are doing such sabotage as legitimate acts of war, like the Ukrainians did with the Kerch Bridge, are quite open about what they are doing. In fact, the only scenario I can think of where someone might want to do this and escape being noticed would be if a competing port, like say, the port of Norfolk/Newport News, would want to take down the bridge to eliminate competition without taking the blame for the act. But that's ridiculous conspiracy theory nonsense.
Click to expand...
They might want to leave a clear signature showing who (as in which organization or cause) did it, but still want to escape personal responsibility / consequences.

The possibility of being able to get away and vanish might lower the threshold to being willing to engage in such attacks.
 
Maryland DOT has a nice album of photos of the construction of the Key Bridge at:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdta/albums/72157642161719993/with/13064448804

One of the proposals floating around including an opinion piece in the WSJ is to build the same bridge but with upto date pier protection. The argument is that it is probably the fastest way to build a replacement since a lot of the existing pier base infrastructure can be used and will almost certainly not require extensive NEPA exercise. Mind you, I am just reporting what was in the WSJ opinion piece, and do not have a huge opinion of my own, other than what I stated before regarding using a cable stayed box girder bridge, which seems a natural in this day and age. but admittedly I have no idea how much additional work would be involved in getting approvals etc.
 
Last edited:
jis said:
One of the proposals floating around including an opinion piece in the WSJ is to build the same bridge but with upto date pier protection. The argument is that it is probably the fastest way to build a replacement wince a lot of the existing pier base infrastructure can be used and will almost certainly not require extensive NEPA exercise. Mind you, I am just reporting what was in the WSJ opinion piece, and do not have a huge opinion of my own, other than what I stated before regarding using a cable stayed box girder bridge, which seems a natural in this day and age. but admittedly I have no idea how much addition work would be involved in getting approvals etc.
Click to expand...
NEPA can be skipped or at least truncated by the president. It is unlikely the existing foundations can be reused as the damage truly done to them is going to be a mystery for a while.
It would likely be quicker to start brand new foundations that are wider for an overall longer main span.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top