west point
Engineer
Would we be surprised if the new bridge has a higher clearance than the Key bridge had?
Since this had nothing to do with terrorism, I don't see anything beyond protecting piers better coming out of it.I wonder what this accident is going to create as far as more terrorist prevention.
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.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
Hope the busy RF&P doesn't muck up the Northeast Regional Richmond service or the Silvers, Carolinian, or Palmetto.‘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.
It had the same clearance, 185 ft., as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (Annapolis to the Eastern Shore), so there's no need.Would we be surprised if the new bridge has a higher clearance than the Key bridge had?
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.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
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.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.
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.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..
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.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.
They could also put in barrier islands. See the Sunshine Skyway and the Commodore Barry Bridge.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.
I think it has highlighted to terrorists across the world how easy it is to take down major infrastructure.Since this had nothing to do with terrorism, I don't see anything beyond protecting piers better coming out of it.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
See the following post upthread...Curious if they might try and get a bit more height to water on the rebuild, within the limits of the approaches of course.
Enter your email address to join: