HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 12:27 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post

PS, I'm not a technical person, but I'd be shocked if existing piers had any use for a taller bridge. The demands on these would be very different, including lateral/wind forces.
I meant more the anchorage (is that the right word?) ... not the old existing piers that we see but re-using the already furnished pier caps above the water line. I'm not an engineer so I'm not sure about the terminology or the feasibility but it seems reasonable to think you wouldn't actually have to completely build brand new connections to the river/harbor floor.,
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 1:53 AM
xzmattzx's Avatar
xzmattzx xzmattzx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 6,361
I would imagine you have to start from scratch with any new bridge (or tunnel). Why build a bridge with the same footprint in the river, and risk another ship collision? A new bridge could have piers closer to land and a wider shipping lane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 3:12 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
in other words, maersk will say it wasn’t me and slip out of responsibility and the contractor ship line will cry broke and have limited insurance … so lawyers will get paid and the taxpayers will end up footing the bill.

aaaannnnddd here it comes ...

although this occured within the usa, not on the open seas, so we will see what happens ...



Titanic law helps ship owner limit liability in Baltimore bridge collapse

UPDATED MAR 27, 2024, 10:44 AM
FacebookTelegram


NEW YORK – The owner of the Singapore-flagged ship that rammed into a Baltimore bridge could face hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims after the accident sent vehicles plunging into the water and threw the eastern US transportation network into chaos.

But legal experts said there is a path for reducing liability under an obscure 19th-century law once invoked by the owner of the Titanic to limit its payout for the 1912 sinking.


more:
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/u...ridge-collapse
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 4:38 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
so … maersk is paying for all this repair and rebuild, right??
Build Back Better.

But seriously - the usage of this bridge is very low. Only 30,000 vehicles per day. By contrast, the nearby Ft. McHenry Tunnel is 116,000. Replacing it is a borderline pork barrel project. It's comical to see Pete Buttigieg out there making bold proclamations about replacing this bridge when that same mouth talks about reducing greenhouses gasses every other day.

Here is a good history of this bridge:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html

This website has been up since about 1998.

Last edited by jmecklenborg; Mar 27, 2024 at 4:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 1:02 PM
UrbanImpact's Avatar
UrbanImpact UrbanImpact is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Build Back Better.

But seriously - the usage of this bridge is very low. Only 30,000 vehicles per day. By contrast, the nearby Ft. McHenry Tunnel is 116,000. Replacing it is a borderline pork barrel project. It's comical to see Pete Buttigieg out there making bold proclamations about replacing this bridge when that same mouth talks about reducing greenhouses gasses every other day.

Here is a good history of this bridge:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html

This website has been up since about 1998.
I love Pete, he's one of the most accomplished and highly qualified guys out there.

Aren't many of the vehicles that use the bridge, trucks that cannot use the tunnels due to the types of cargo they carry?

There's nothing comical about replacing critical infrastructure and wanting to reduce greenhouse gasses at the same time. What's comical, in a tragic way, are Republicans blaming DEI and open borders for the bridge collapse.

Last edited by UrbanImpact; Mar 27, 2024 at 1:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 1:49 PM
UrbanImpact's Avatar
UrbanImpact UrbanImpact is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 1,382
The new I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, that was previously also a victim of collapse, was lit up in Maryland colors last night
https://www.fox5dc.com/video/1431640
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 2:24 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Build Back Better.

But seriously - the usage of this bridge is very low. Only 30,000 vehicles per day. By contrast, the nearby Ft. McHenry Tunnel is 116,000. Replacing it is a borderline pork barrel project. It's comical to see Pete Buttigieg out there making bold proclamations about replacing this bridge when that same mouth talks about reducing greenhouses gasses every other day.

Here is a good history of this bridge:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html

This website has been up since about 1998.

you go on playa, but i’m not driving through those tunnels squeezed with oversized or hazardous materials vehicles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 3:09 PM
UrbanImpact's Avatar
UrbanImpact UrbanImpact is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
you go on playa, but i’m not driving through those tunnels squeezed with oversized or hazardous materials vehicles.
I believe there is only 1 road tunnel in the USA that allows hazardous materials to travel through, the Eisenhower Tunnel in Colorado.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 3:45 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanImpact View Post
I love Pete, he's one of the most accomplished and highly qualified guys out there.

Aren't many of the vehicles that use the bridge, trucks that cannot use the tunnels due to the types of cargo they carry?

There's nothing comical about replacing critical infrastructure and wanting to reduce greenhouse gasses at the same time.

I'm trying to find a list of the busiest interstate highway bridges in the United States and I'm not seeing this bridge, with its paltry 30,000 vehicles, anywhere on them. It might not rank in the top 1,000 busiest bridges:
https://artbabridgereport.org/state/ranking/top-bridges

It's had 50~ years to build up its own ecosystem but has failed to do so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 3:46 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
you go on playa, but i’m not driving through those tunnels squeezed with oversized or hazardous materials vehicles.
Baltimore has a loop. They'll just go around the north side of the city now.

BTW, your cell phone and laptop and anything with a lithium ion battery in it is technically hazardous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2024, 3:49 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Baltimore has a loop. They'll just go around the north side of the city now.

BTW, your cell phone and laptop and anything with a lithium ion battery in it is technically hazardous.

obviously the dot is concerned about hazardous bulk material trucking, explosive, radioactive materials and stuff like that, not personal items like bic lighters & iphones. and just as obviously there are other routes, but the point is attempts to take the speedier tunnels by vehicles that shouldn’t be in there will be a chronic problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:24 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.