Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

The Key Bridge Collapse


 Share

Recommended Posts

As someone who has taken 10s of thousands of photos of the Key Bridge, near the Bridge, and the Marine traffic on the Chesapeake Bay, it was hard to see the tragedy that occurred today and hard to believe that it is gone. My neighborhood became the viewing spot for the local and national media. There were at least 8 news crews at our community's waterfront access. Even a Canadian News camera man was setting up here too. 

The effects of what occurred today were change the region, Port of Baltimore, distribution, transportation, and jobs for decades. 

 

One of my favorite sunset photos of the Key Bridge from a few years ago.

Screenshot 2024-03-26 220218.png

  • Like 26
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Winter Wizard said:

When I first saw the headline I imagined it was like the Philly bridge collapse last year and that it was only a small segment of a bridge that would be repaired in a few weeks. Seeing the entire thing collapsed made my jaw drop. I've taken that bridge a few times to go home when I lived in Maryland, and whenever I drove on that or the Bay Bridge at night, I always felt a little uneasy for that reason. I've felt that way ever since the Minneapolis bridge collapse a while back. Just a terrible tragedy and there are going to be significant supply chain and economic ramifications around here. Not to mention traffic through the tunnels, which are a major artery for East Coast travel, will be even more of a nightmare.

I still cannot believe how it just appeared to fold like it was made out of cardboard. Man... I feel like it's only just sinking in what's happened. You have those that are presumed deceased (Again, praying for those families: it's chilling to see the trucks they were in go sliding down like that...mercy). But then, you have the transportation and economic ripple effects that will be felt for months or even years to come! The city certainly has a long road ahead...but prayerfully something good comes out of this tragedy and we come back better and stronger!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Harv_poor said:

Have read time estimates of anything from a year (I do not believe) to at least four.  It takes so long for anything to be built these days that to me the 4 years sound more believable. I wonder if they will have to do any enviroment studies and even enviroment lawsuits which slow down everything even more. Look how long it takes to build pipe lines or the Purple Line.

This!!

 

By the time that the enviornmentalist  and their lawyers are done with this  it will take 4 years to get permits!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The optimist in me would hope that even the most adamant of environmental advocates would see the economic impact of this bridge being out of commission for a long duration. Additionally, perhaps they'd see the added fossil fuel burning from trucks having to find longer alternate routes to get to/from the same spots. But optimism only gets you so far these days lol

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bigtenfan said:

This!!

 

By the time that the enviornmentalist  and their lawyers are done with this  it will take 4 years to get permits!

About 8-10 years ago, MDE gave in to Big Solar and declared that PV panels are not really impervious, thus avoiding SWM for those thousands of acres  of solar farms. I predict they do similar for new Key Bridge if it becomes a pet project of the State. Otherwise, you'd be right... no bridge for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, bigtenfan said:

This!!

 

By the time that the enviornmentalist  and their lawyers are done with this  it will take 4 years to get permits!

From NEPA: Most Emergency Relief projects and emergency repairs qualify as a categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(9), which includes the repair, reconstruction, restoration, retrofitting, or replacement of eligible facilities if the work 1) occurs within the existing right-of-way; 2) conforms to the pre-existing design, function, and location as the original; and 3) is commenced within two years of the date of disaster.

Basically, they can avoid a lot of environmental red tape if they largely rebuild the old design, but I think we'd all hope there's leeway to make the supports stronger and then add barriers. I don't think this exception would work if it was going to be a new type of bridge altogether.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, bigtenfan said:

This!!

 

By the time that the enviornmentalist  and their lawyers are done with this  it will take 4 years to get permits!

I don’t think so.  This isn’t like building a new bridge between MD/VA north of 495 or even expanding lanes on the Beltway.  This is a replacement.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GramaxRefugee said:

About 8-10 years ago, MDE gave in to Big Solar and declared that PV panels are not really impervious, thus avoiding SWM for those thousands of acres  of solar farms. I predict they do similar for new Key Bridge if it becomes a pet project of the State. Otherwise, you'd be right... no bridge for you.

Oooo a topic I know well! I'll keep this short, I know it's off topic. The pervious vs impervious debate on solar panels has been happening in many states and the legislation typically falls well short of common sense... like a lot of things these days. My view as an engineer is they shouldn't be considered completely one or the other except for very specific cases. On a typical ground mount installation, the only truly blocked off portions of the ground are where foundations enter the ground/sit. The panels will of course redirect and concentrate rainfall a bit, but you have gaps between every panel where water can drip down to the ground below. Water running across the ground is also not prevented from entering the ground when running under panels. A more useful piece of legislation would take all this into account, but that would require doing more legwork to figure out. And lawmakers are lazy. So we get half-baked decisions like "totally impervious" or "totally pervious" when the truth lies somewhere in-between. 

Rooftop/garagetop solar won't affect stormwater calcs since they're going on top of already impervious surface. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My observations: It just looked like it was one rickety bridge. Went down easy.

Can't believe they got it on video.

I think I read that the captain of the boat knew that is was out of power and hard to control with plenty of minutes before impact. Why not drop the anchor?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, coolio said:

My observations: It just looked like it was one rickety bridge. Went down easy.

Can't believe they got it on video.

I think I read that the captain of the boat knew that is was out of power and hard to control with plenty of minutes before impact. Why not drop the anchor?

 

"The pilot immediately ordered the rudder hard to port to keep the ship from turning right and ordered the port anchor be dropped, which it was, Diamond said. The pilot also contacted a dispatch office to get the bridge shut down."

https://apnews.com/live/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-latest-2024

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TSG said:

Oooo a topic I know well! I'll keep this short, I know it's off topic. The pervious vs impervious debate on solar panels has been happening in many states and the legislation typically falls well short of common sense... like a lot of things these days. My view as an engineer is they shouldn't be considered completely one or the other except for very specific cases. On a typical ground mount installation, the only truly blocked off portions of the ground are where foundations enter the ground/sit. The panels will of course redirect and concentrate rainfall a bit, but you have gaps between every panel where water can drip down to the ground below. Water running across the ground is also not prevented from entering the ground when running under panels. A more useful piece of legislation would take all this into account, but that would require doing more legwork to figure out. And lawmakers are lazy. So we get half-baked decisions like "totally impervious" or "totally pervious" when the truth lies somewhere in-between. 

Rooftop/garagetop solar won't affect stormwater calcs since they're going on top of already impervious surface. 

True to us sensible scientists, but not to State of Maryland. The only thing that redevelopment buys you now is cutting inches of rainfall from 2.2 (roughly) down to 1 inch. If you put impervious on impervious, you still have to do quality control (ESD) as of c. 2015. (Was phased in 50%, 75%, now 100%) . And, in Prince George's, as of 2019, you have to do quantity control too, even though you are replacing roof with roof.

Redskins stadium made some covered parking by making their carport roof out of PV panels. Clever.

VA is more sensible than MD.  But I've long told clients...never try to make sense out of environmental laws.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2024 at 6:52 AM, H2O said:

That ship seemed to be having issues. No way does this happen without a cause. Awful tragedy that ruined lives for some. Hoping that traffic was light and the construction workers somehow were able to bail out. Saw that 3 might have been rescued?

 

Will be years before a bridge is built to replace. Harbor closed will be a big impact as well. Big shipping port. This is huge for our area

This is serious. Massive economic impact on commerce. I heard six workers patching potholes perished in the bridge collapse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta go near there today 

It wasn’t  wind

Not yet confirmed by on boards that engines never came back on Lights  go off and the crew did something because look close and you will see when lights come back in that the rear starts to slide and bow turns right and directly toward supports. Lights go off again but they are on a new course and glide right into the bridge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A port worker reporting that the Dali was having serious intermittent power outages for a couple days leading up to the departure. 

The article covers the worker’s statements, and the video has her statements beginning around 3:57.

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-03-26/major-bridge-in-baltimore-collapses-following-collision-with-cargo-ship

 

@CAPE

This accident must be consuming for you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, nw baltimore wx said:

A port worker reporting that the Dali was having serious intermittent power outages for a couple days leading up to the departure. 

The article covers the worker’s statements, and the video has her statements beginning around 3:57.

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-03-26/major-bridge-in-baltimore-collapses-following-collision-with-cargo-ship

 

@CAPE

This accident must be consuming for you.

Yes there is always a lot of interest and discussion around here when some sort of accident involving a merchant ship occurs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coolio said:

 Why not drop the anchor?

 

3 hours ago, Kay said:

"The pilot immediately ordered the rudder hard to port to keep the ship from turning right and ordered the port anchor be dropped, which it was, Diamond said. The pilot also contacted a dispatch office to get the bridge shut down."

https://apnews.com/live/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-latest-2024

Not to mention that dropping an anchor won’t immediately stop a canoe, not to mention a high rise on its side. I don’t know much about marine piloting, but I know that there’s a pretty complicated formula for anchor drop and how much line is needed to secure a stationary ship. Factor in that this ship was incredibly large, moving at about 7 knots, tides, wind, current, and proximity to the truss makes me wonder if dropping anchors would have done (or did) much. I do, however, wonder if tugs on either side could have made a difference. But hindsight is 20/20.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plan to clear the channel -

Lt. Gen. Scott Spellmon, commander and chief of engineers, explained the team will approach the mission in three steps. Here's what they are:

  • Step 1: Get the steel trust out of a 700-foot-wide by 50-foot-deep channel, and examine what parts of the concrete are still at the bottom. "Any piece of concrete, any piece of steel on the bottom is just as much as of a hazard as that in the channel," Spellmon said. This step will allow "one-way traffic going in and out of the Port of Baltimore again," he said.
  • Step 2: Work closely with the Coast Guard to stabilize containers on top of the ship. Then the trust of the bridge that is still on top of the ship needs to be taken off "so it can be tugged to a safe part of the port," Spellmon said. "By removing the vessel, that will allow us to reopen two-way traffic."
  • Step 3: Take out the remaining 2,900 feet of steel and all the associated concrete and roadway that's at the river bottom.

"We're up to this task. We have what we need," Spellmon said.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-03-27-24/index.html

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GramaxRefugee said:

True to us sensible scientists, but not to State of Maryland. The only thing that redevelopment buys you now is cutting inches of rainfall from 2.2 (roughly) down to 1 inch. If you put impervious on impervious, you still have to do quality control (ESD) as of c. 2015. (Was phased in 50%, 75%, now 100%) . And, in Prince George's, as of 2019, you have to do quantity control too, even though you are replacing roof with roof.

Redskins stadium made some covered parking by making their carport roof out of PV panels. Clever.

VA is more sensible than MD.  But I've long told clients...never try to make sense out of environmental laws.

ahh yeah definitely referencing my experience in VA with that last statement. When I was working on projects in DC they had similar stormwater requirements.

Want a great example of horribly written legislation? In DC, 50% of total rooftop solar panel area counts towards the "green area ratio" requirement on new/re-development. A majority of the reason that bill was enacted was to improve the water holding ability of the local landscape. Solar panels definitely do not retain water :arrowhead:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, coolio said:

My observations: It just looked like it was one rickety bridge. Went down easy.

Can't believe they got it on video.

I think I read that the captain of the boat knew that is was out of power and hard to control with plenty of minutes before impact. Why not drop the anchor?

 

From people more knowledgeable than myself - I've heard that it's not as simple as "drop the anchor = stop the boat" - and as a prior poster said - it seems they DID attempt to drop it anyway. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Kmlwx said:

From people more knowledgeable than myself - I've heard that it's not as simple as "drop the anchor = stop the boat" - and as a prior poster said - it seems they DID attempt to drop it anyway. 

The ship weighed 116,000 tons at the time.  Dropping the anchor was not stopping that vessel.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel terrible about all the companies whose shipping is piling up outside that accident area. And for all the shipping trapped for G-d knows how long INSIDE the disaster zone! It's gonna cost a few million dollars. Maybe slightly more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kay said:

The plan to clear the channel -

Lt. Gen. Scott Spellmon, commander and chief of engineers, explained the team will approach the mission in three steps. Here's what they are:

  • Step 1: Get the steel trust out of a 700-foot-wide by 50-foot-deep channel, and examine what parts of the concrete are still at the bottom. "Any piece of concrete, any piece of steel on the bottom is just as much as of a hazard as that in the channel," Spellmon said. This step will allow "one-way traffic going in and out of the Port of Baltimore again," he said.
  • Step 2: Work closely with the Coast Guard to stabilize containers on top of the ship. Then the trust of the bridge that is still on top of the ship needs to be taken off "so it can be tugged to a safe part of the port," Spellmon said. "By removing the vessel, that will allow us to reopen two-way traffic."
  • Step 3: Take out the remaining 2,900 feet of steel and all the associated concrete and roadway that's at the river bottom.

"We're up to this task. We have what we need," Spellmon said.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-03-27-24/index.html

I wonder how long it will take them to clear the channel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Interstate said:

I wonder how long it will take them to clear the channel. 

I saw a rough timeline posted somewhere yesterday, from what I remember:

- short term goal is to clear the channel enough for one-way traffic in 3-6 weeks.

- Two-way traffic coming a month or more past that once they've pulled the ship back to port

- ~6 months for full cleanup of the bridge structure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TSG said:

I saw a rough timeline posted somewhere yesterday, from what I remember:

- short term goal is to clear the channel enough for one-way traffic in 3-6 weeks.

- Two-way traffic coming a month or more past that once they've pulled the ship back to port

- ~6 months for full cleanup of the bridge structure

You would think they could get the channel cleared for one way traffic quicker than that... I mean they should be working 24 hours a day on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...