|
Jelly posted:In the OP you can literally see at least 4 semi trucks and a few passenger vehicles cross within a minute of the collapse, even if that video is sped up. Very skeptical of this claim. There were about 4 minutes of warning and the portion of the bridge that could be closed off is probably about 2-3 miles, especially on the east side. The traffic clearing the bridge right before the collision were already at or past the point they could close when the warning came in.
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
HugeGrossBurrito posted:The tunnels still have some road work going on in the toll plazas and on 95 I believe. So basically we have 695 west which is way the hell out of the way, the two tunnels that can’t take many trucks or any hazmat and I suppose there’s also the Hanover street bridge on 2 but that’s also kind of out of the way and goes right into a fairly truck unfriendly part of the city. The hanover street bridge is another disaster waiting to happen. I wasn't a huge fan of driving over the key/bay bridges but the hanover street bridge is a straight up nope from me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
The problem isn't being able to see the rebar through the holes, the problem is seeing the water through the holes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
 The channel isn't the entire width of the river. From this map it actually looks like the shallower parts start before you even get to the bridge pilings, so it might've started grounding, depending on how deep the ship is and where the water level was. It's also a tidal estuary, and there were steady winds blowing across the channel at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 20:38
|
|
|
The span could easily be covered by a cable-stayed or suspension bridge, and really you could put the pilings far enough out so any ship would run aground before it hit the bridge, or even all the way out on land. Main span was about 1/4 mile, with the truss section as a whole 1/2 mile, and the entire part of the bridge over the water was just over 1 mile.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
redshirt posted:I wonder if /how they can get those containers off the ship and not dropping them all in the ocean. When the Ever Forward grounded in the bay a couple years ago they had a couple crane barges unload containers to reduce weight so they could refloat the ship. They won't be able to do that here until they clear the bridge debris, but here the ship should still be floating if they can get it away from the debris, so it's possible they might just be able to tow it back to port.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 02:04
|
|
|
Traffic is going to get worse but not catastrophically so, the bridge carried about 35,000 out of 230,000 daily trips across the harbor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 02:46
|
|
|
That's not exactly what happened:quote:The Francis Scott Key Bridge opened in March 1977 and is named for the author of the Star Spangled Banner. The bridge is the outermost of three toll crossings of Baltimore's Harbor. Upon completion, the bridge structure and its approaches became the final links in Interstate 695 (the Baltimore Beltway). https://mdta.maryland.gov/Toll_Facilities/FSK.html
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
I was looking for a clip from one of the local TV stations (and regretting that I no longer have a way to record OTA TV on my computer) and came across a story from last Friday where the coast guard was seeking help in identifying someone sending false mayday calls. Since this is a Real thing that Actually Happened of course none of the  nuts have latched onto it.https://twitter.com/uscgmidatlantic/status/1770882486618222779 But given everything we know about the timeline it would've only taken a little bit of delay (like radioing back to confirm) on forwarding the information to the transit police to make a difference. That almost certainly didn't happen here, but it really puts emphasis on how tight the window was to get the construction crew off the bridge - if this moron had been broadcasting a fake distress call around the same time even dispatching the information could've been delayed and they might not have been able to stop traffic in time. New video from this guy today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alpaDfnT-Bk Mostly aligns with what I've been thinking re: clearing the channel - you don't have to completely remove the bridge to get the channel open, there's already some assets nearby that can help with the salvage operations, and if someone pushes for it they could have the channel open in a couple of weeks. Also new to me was the news that the ship was partially grounded, not sure if anyone knows if that's going to make a big difference in the recovery timeline.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Log082 posted:It's also not like the bridge just carried hazmat exclusively, it was the best way to get across the bay without going through the city. The tunnels are still there, but they add a lot of extra time to a trip depending on where you're coming from/going to. The bridge definitely needs to be replaced. I have to go meet family today, and the bridge being out is going to add at least half an hour to my trip. From looking at charts the "shallows" were still about 20 feet, you don't get to the chest-deep stuff until you're much closer to shore (but you can still wade out a good couple hundred feet most places in the bay). IIRC it was also peak tide and water levels were running a bit higher than average due to weather as well, so that might not have been enough to meaningfully ground the ship. But at this point there's not a whole lot of reason not to go with a longer cable-stayed span other than the potential cost, but that might not be as big of an issue considering the total length of the bridge complex - this is a perfect opportunity to upgrade the area to 3 lanes of width, especially with the port and nearby distribution centers growing significantly in recent years and likely to continue to grow. A wider span also allows the channel to be widened in the future to accommodate larger ships and more traffic. For me the bridge was the way I went when I wanted to go south of the city (basically going from 83 to 97) - I'm a bit closer to the east side than the west side, so it was shorter overall, the bridge had a slightly cheaper toll, generally less traffic, and the tunnels just give me anxiety, even if overall the trip was a few miles longer than taking the tunnels. I think people are overstating the hazmat situation - through traffic on 95 has about the same distance to go around the beltway either way, with the main difference being the generally more congested traffic situation on the west side. And the total traffic on the bridge was already relatively low (about a third as much as each of the tunnels individually). The most significant impacts are going to be on: -Locals south of 95 who commuted on the bridge from one side to the other, now having to detour ~5-10 miles out of the way to go north to the tunnels and then back south again -Restricted traffic coming out of the local area, particularly out of the port (which is on the north side) headed south. This traffic might have to divert either all the way around the beltway (~55 miles) or take surface streets (just not something you want in general) - same for traffic coming to the port from the south. -Delivery traffic coming in and out of the distribution center, even if not restricted, is at minimum going to need to contend with additional congestion in the tunnels as well as not having highway access nearly as close as there once was. 695 going north from there should be opened again soon if it's not already, but that's only half access.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2024 17:11
|
|