A virtual forum was already held by the authorities involved with stakeholders to discuss possible steps and at least one builder has already expressed readiness to respond to an RFI/RFP when it happens with a proposal. If fast-tracked, we’re talking 4 years from the greenlight, easily (using the same ROW so they don’t need brand new EISs or new permanent acquisitions, according to the FHWA in a hearing).
Meanwhile however there is already a bit of a problem in Capitol Hill over POTUS’s immediate proposition to have the rebuild 100% federally funded. Seems like it so happens the segment of road containing the Key Bridge, though connecting segments of I-95 and being signed as I-695, was not itself considered fully part of the Interstate system, but Maryland has asked DOT to retroactively reclassify it as such, which would mean it could get 90% FHWA coverage directly for this. So to begin with there’s argument about whether they can really just do that. Then in any case, whether it’s by rights covered 90% or 80% or whatever% federal, Congress would still have to explicitly legislate to approve paying 100%.
While it’s tragic that this bridge collapsed I have issues with the Fed covering the cost. I can think of more important bridges in my state that would take priority.
I agree. I am not seeing why federal dollars should be spent on this. Maybe the feds can help with a low interest loan or something but it seems this is mainly for the state and/or the port and/or the ship owners to pay for (I know…ships have crazy-stupid low liability limits).
Yes, they really had to slow-walk it in place. Imagine the weight involved. I kept looking at the aerial view looking for people to tie it off. The ship was so big that people were ants in comparison and couldn’t be seen.
I noticed the port anchor was missing. There was talk about it interfering with the natural gas pipeline underneath the Dali so they must have cut it loose. It took 6 days to fully shut down the pipeline.
They will almost certainly discharge all cargo. While much of it could from a technical perspective, if strictly necessary, probably be left on board during repairs cargo owners will want their cargo and repairs will be easier if the vessel is empty.
From what I’ve seen the damage will be relatively minor. There will be no “full rebuild”.
The bow is the “dumb end” of the vessel ie it does not house the machinery or propulsion or steering gear. It is just a steel box fabrication with a few fittings. There will be some bent and torn steel. I haven’t heard if the hull has been breached and I don’t know if she grounded hard forward or just struck the bridge with the bow above the waterline, but from what I can see either way the damage will be limited.
They will fix her up locally to satisfy her Classification Society (NKK) that she is OK for a one-off voyage to a shipyard probably in Asia, where they will chop out the bent and torn bits, weld in some new steel, repaint and replace fittings. Not a major thing by the standards of the industry.
The only caveat is if the vessel hit so hard it caused wider structural damage or distortion down the length of the vessel. I very much doubt it would have, but I could be wrong.
No it wouldn’t. The new bridge will be higher & a wider span to comply with current bridge building standards, coupled with the fact that the piers took some wonky loading when the bridge fell I don’t see anyone signing off on reusing them even if they were to build the same bridge again.
If they’re going to do it right, they’d put more than six dolphins up & six on each side is 12 dolphins; each dolphin is ½ a man???
They’ll likely install a longer center section that spans the shipping lane. it would require new support piers farther apart. It can be as high as they want it to be and blended into the original sections. It would be a significant waste of time and material reproducing the structure that remains.
Well the thought would be 6 on each side. people are only going to be looking at 1 side of the other as they pass by and not both. I don’t think anyone is going to get out a calculator and argue about the aspects of designing memorials. YMMV.
… as long as somebody is willing to certify that no abnormal loads were transmitted to the parts in tending to be reused.
As well knowing the general inadequacy of US bridge maintenance and the generally undersized nature of every big-city bridge in the country, this represents an excellent opportunity to replace the whole damn thing with something twice as big and much more future-proofed.
Will TPTB take that opportunity? Hellifino. We shall see.
It’s a 60 yo design. Not only would they like more lanes but higher (ships are a lot bigger than they were way back when & I’m not sure it’s wise to bet against them getting even larger in the future) & a bigger span between bridge supports so that what happened is much less likely/impossible to happen again.
Even if someone was willing to sign off that the existing supports are sound, the new bridge will be both higher & heavier (more lanes / wider) so the existing piers probably wouldn’t be adequate for the new design. About the only thing I could see them being used for is by turning the remaining structure into a pedestrian/fishing pier.
The shipping channel has been fully re-opened. I did notice that tugs are being used all the way in and out of the channel in all of the pics that I have seen.
The Baltimore Beltway has a long history of waiting until traffic becomes a complete mess before widening the road, then by the time they finally get the road widened, traffic has increased to the point where the road again isn’t wide enough. Any time they want more lanes, that’s a good thing. The more the better.
I guess it makes sense. What a waste of existing structures. There’s not really anything they can do with them except maybe walkways for people who want to watch boats go by. It wouldn’t surprise me if they just left them there rather than spend money tearing them down. I’ve seen plenty of piers along rivers from old bridges.
The old railroad line from Miami to Key West is still there. Sorta. Too much trouble to tear down. But I’m told there is amazing fishing from the old pylons.
Most modern cars have electric steering. If that fails it reverts to manual which is pretty hard work. Try steering your car without starting the engine.
As I posted upthread they use to move large swing bridges with a hand operated winding gear system. I’m not suggesting this as a solution per se. But If you’ve ever taken a garage door opener apart it’s a tiny worm gear driving a small plastic gear.
Whatever the backup system is it has to be functional in an emergency otherwise it’s not a backup system.
This isn’t analogous to what occurred though – ships don’t steer slower in emergency situations. They steer slower when their main steering has failed. The emergency situation was the steering failure.
This incident occurred because of the failure of the primary backup - when the power initially failed, what should have occurred was that the second-in-line generator should have started within a few seconds, resulting in the vessel having full steering control again.
The problem here was that backup failed also, resulting in the ship effectively using its secondary backup which was less capable. How many lines of defence able to operate the steering at full rate do you think are appropriate?
IME with the benefit of hindsight the armchair quarterback answer to that question is always “more”. No matter how many there were in the first place.