My opinion: we should replace the Key Bridge and Bay Bridge with tunnels (North Beach: to buy, contractors)

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

I don't think they will either for the reasons I have explained, I don't see how this perceived bias in the article changes that.

Another thought is the entire bridge did not collapse, just the middle part. So they will not be starting from scratch, a good portion on either end remains. They most certainly would be starting from scratch with a tunnel.

They'll have to go over those ramps in detail. A hit like that piling took will have radiated throughout the structure, possibly wracking it and maybe cracking components.

[NJ2MDdude]

Originally Posted by MidValleyDad

I don't think you could do something resembling the WW bridge architecture and get the clearance you would need without a draw span. The structure required for a high wide span needed is completely different. Also the channel of the Potomac is MUCH narrower than the Patapsco at Baltimore Harbor.

You've made some good points. Considering the FSK bridge didn't take anyone directly into the city, I imagine bridge design, in terms of aesthetics, won't be seriously considered.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

That's how roads, as well as bridges, are funded anyway, with bonds. In the cases of tolled facilities the tolls are dedicated to the bond repayment. In the case of just general highway bonds the repayment is from the General Fund.

For local jurisdiction that bond roads there's always a notation in the documents that the bonds will be repaid with an ad valorem tax. In other words, the local property taxes.

Building/extensive repairing of roads, bridges, tunnels aren't "cash on the barrelhead".

I'm requoting myself to add something to what I bolded:

When I said General Fund I should have specified that those funds to pay off general road bonds are, in theory, coming from the gas tax revenues and not general revenues a state collects (sales tax, personal and business income tax, in Maryland the state piece of the property tax).

Unfortunately, in many states those gas tax funds have been raided for other uses and are made up by other General Fund revenues.

[bus man]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

Another thought is the entire bridge did not collapse, just the middle part. So they will not be starting from scratch, a good portion on either end remains. They most certainly would be starting from scratch with a tunnel.

If they don't build a tunnel, but still want to address the issue of ship clearances, they'll have to build a higher span. If they do, I suspect the bridge supports (that are of a height to support a bridge with a certain amount of clearance) will have to be taken down and rebuilt. But maybe they could reuse their foundations.

[H8PJs]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

Look, if you can't handle other peoples opinion, maybe you should not be here.

Flawed argument.



Opinions shouldn't be treated as sacrosanct, and opinions based on "Google University" are not as valid as opinions based on years or decades of experience and/or scholarly study.

[DaveinMtAiry]

Originally Posted by bus man

If they don't build a tunnel, but still want to address the issue of ship clearances, they'll have to build a higher span. If they do, I suspect the bridge supports (that are of a height to support a bridge with a certain amount of clearance) will have to be taken down and rebuilt. But maybe they could reuse their foundations.

But isn't the middle part that collapsed the part where the ships go under? I wonder if there is a way to retain what exists, of course after they had been inspected and found to be secure, and then make the middle section taller than it was before? Just a slight increase in incline may do it, I don't know.

Obviously what new structure built should have supports for protection from this happening again. When I made my Bay Bridge comment example I was under the impression that they had these protections around the pilings, I stand corrected. So they should be doing that as there well.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

But isn't the middle part that collapsed the part where the ships go under? I wonder if there is a way to retain what exists, of course after they had been inspected and found to be secure, and then make the middle section taller than it was before? Just a slight increase in incline may do it, I don't know.

Obviously what new structure built should have supports for protection from this happening again. When I made my Bay Bridge comment example I was under the impression that they had these protections around the pilings, I stand corrected. So they should be doing that as there well.

The geometry of the ramps would need to be reconfigured; the current slope would be designed for the old bridge.

I don't understand why everyone, or quite a few people, are so focused on a higher bridge when there's a bottleneck down the Bay that won't be replaced (and the current plan, or discussion, is to keep those bridges and build a third) for twenty years. That's if they start building it tomorrow.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

I don't understand why everyone, or quite a few people, are so focused on a higher bridge when there's a bottleneck down the Bay that won't be replaced (and the current plan, or discussion, is to keep those bridges and build a third) for twenty years. That's if they start building it tomorrow.

Because AASHTO usually requires a minimum 75 year life-span for bridges and major ones of this scale are so over engineered they'll last well in excess of a century with proper maintenance. In short, whatever replaces the Key Bridge is what the region is stuck with well into the 23rd century and will outlive the Bay Bridge(s) by several decades at minimum.

So ask yourself, why would they recreate the same air-draft problem... for the next +100 years? (unless you think those spans will still be kicking in 2124)

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by Joakim3

Because AASHTO usually requires a minimum 75 year life-span for bridges and major ones of this scale are so over engineered they'll last well in excess of a century with proper maintenance. In short, whatever replaces the Key Bridge is what the region is stuck with well into the 23rd century and will outlive the Bay Bridge(s) by several decades at minimum.

So ask yourself, why would they recreate the same air-draft problem... for the next +100 years? (unless you think those spans will still be kicking in 2124)

And I ask you why would they build a higher FSK now when there's no guarantee the Bay Bridge will be built higher? And yes, the plan right now is to keep those spans operating past the 75 year design standard. They pretty much have to since one hits that in a couple years while the second hits it in 2048.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

And I ask you why would they build a higher FSK now when there's no guarantee the Bay Bridge will be built higher? And yes, the plan right now is to keep those spans operating past the 75 year design standard. They pretty much have to since one hits that in a couple years while the second hits it in 2048.

Nothing is guaranteed.

Building the FSK bridge taller now, highly incentives wanting/needing to build the Bay Bridge higher (at whatever date) as it then becomes the single locational bottleneck for the regions maritime economic growth, which in turn tends to accelerate infrastructure replacement as there is not only logistical but economic justification and ramifications if not expedited. Perfect example(s) being the BP & Howard Street Tunnels.

Why thats so controversial is beyond me.