8 ms·

Thanks! So why are huge—ass container ships allowed to navigate underneath fragile public bridges with single points of failure? The not unlikely worst case is

Thanks! So why are huge—ass container ships allowed to navigate underneath fragile public bridges with single points of failure? The not unlikely worst case is that the ship is out of control for some reason…

oliviabenson 3y ago
We notice these type of accidents because they’re so rare. 5k+ people die each year because of large trucks on the road, by comparison, boats and bridges are very safe — that’s why it’s allowed.
- 3seashells 3y ago
  [dead]
bombcar 3y ago
Because bridges over harbors are quite common an incidents like this are rare.
- mcv 3y ago
  The Dutch ports of both Amsterdam and Rotterdam have no bridges at all. It's all tunnels. I think that's the best way to go; the least chance of conflict between road and water traffic.
  - keenmaster 3y ago
    Often in America the government waits for something to fail miserably before engaging in a high effort high cost activity that requires a lot of coordination and public buy-in.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Wow. Random ship hits a bridge. Shakes fist at sky "the government".
      - Muromec 3y ago
        But that's what you do with random events -- create policies to prevent them from happening, lowering the incidence rate and minimizing damage once it occurs. Which is exactly what government and laws are all about.
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        That is a generous reading of the parent comment. It sounded much more like a common trope, "the do-nothing government just lets things fail, doesn't take action until something fails".
      - etempleton 3y ago
        The amount of arm chair quarterbacking here is astounding. Reddit has a more nuanced conversation than HN right now. A bridge got hit by a container ship at speed and folks here are talking about this like the bridge was not up to standard, or why there was a bridge there at all when they know nothing about the locale. I am not a structural engineer, but I am going to go ahead and guess that not much would still be standing from a direct hit from a container ship. And from observation bridges like this exist all over the world and don’t regularly get struck by container ships. It was a freak accident. If we want to point fingers or question things, perhaps if anything the question is why the container ship lost power repeatedly? Was this a known issue before leaving port?
        mcv 3y ago
        > A bridge got hit by a container ship at speed and folks here are talking about this like the bridge was not up to standard, or why there was a bridge there at all when they know nothing about the locale. You're right, I don't. But I do know there are other locales where they seem to explicitly avoid bridges crossing heavy ocean traffic.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Tunnels can have other issues: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tunnel_fires https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tunnel_fires and given American drivers I think I’ll take my chances with the big old boats.
- mopenstein 3y ago
  All roads should be underground! What if a plane crashes into a surface road? Or a meteor? Somebody think of the children!
  - astrodust 3y ago
    After making all roads underground: "Tunnel collapses are killing all our children! Let's make all roads above ground!"
mvdtnz 3y ago
Not unlikely? Can you point us to all the other times this has happened? You must know of several given your knowledge of how obviously likely this is.
- rpeden 3y ago
  It's not especially common, but the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay is a famous example. Similar circumstances - it collapsed after being hit by a ship.
  - 3seashells 3y ago
    [dead]
  - pirate787 3y ago
    The replacement bridge in Tampa famously added "dolphins" which are bumpers in the water to protect the bridge pylons.
  - ZanyProgrammer 3y ago
    that collapsed almost 40 years ago, which really emphasizes it's flat out uncommon, no "buts" needed.
- SonOfLilit 3y ago
  Downvoted for unkindness towards internet stranger.
- armchairdweller 3y ago
  When has "nothing will happen as long as we can carefully navigate our massive vessels around these critical pillars" ever been a trustable safety measure? Over the long term shit like this will happen if it the possibility that it happens is not excluded by other measures. This is a public bridge 5 years in the making and who knows how long in planning, and people have been extremely lucky that it collapsed at 3am and not in the middle of the day. It doesn't matter at all how unlikely this is in a given time frame if the impact if it happens at any point in time is catastrophic.
rpeden 3y ago
Because the Port of Baltimore is a very major port, and not allowing ships under it really isn't an option. Vertical clearance for ship traffic might have been the reason this kind of bridge was built in the first place. Otherwise, something lower and more causeway-like might have been sufficient.
- mcv 3y ago
  If it's a very major port, they can afford to make it a tunnel.
  - c5karl 3y ago
    The Patapsco is much wider here than at the locations of the two tunnels. It would have been a much bigger and more expensive project to build a tunnel that long.
  - adestefan 3y ago
    There already are two tunnels for I-95 and I-895 under the port.
    - mcv 3y ago
      Then why is this one a bridge? Why not go all the way and make this a tunnel too?
      - xav0989 3y ago
        Mostly to have a hazmat route around the city (HAZMAT trucks aren’t allowed in the tunnels) and because bridges are cheaper than tunnels. They needed a third crossing because the traffic warranted it.
        mcv 3y ago
        > Mostly to have a hazmat route around the city (HAZMAT trucks aren’t allowed in the tunnels) That is a very interesting point I hadn't considered at all. Price is an obvious point, but I hadn't considered hazmat. It does make me wonder how hazmat traffic is handled around Amsterdam. I think they are allowed in some tunnels here.
317070 3y ago
If bridges and container ships indeed do not go together (something I don't necessarily agree with), you probably want to take away the public bridge and continue to let ships go by. This is economically speaking for the area. Car traffic is just not very efficient in the comparison between the two. Edit: of course there are a ton of other solutions here as well. I am disagreeing with the parent that it is the cars which should get to stay and the container ships which have to move.
- mcv 3y ago
  You can have smaller container ships. Or have the port outside the bridge. Or indeed replace the bridge with a tunnel, or a better bridge. Amsterdam has no bridges at all crossing the IJ on the west side (where sea-going ships come from) and only a single bridge on the east side (though there's often talk of adding another). Everything is tunnels. Rotterdam has bridges (including the famous Erasmusbrug), but only east of the port area. To the west, everything is tunnels. And the largest ships don't even come close to the city center, but dock at the Maasvlakte out at sea. For both cities, ports have constantly moved closer to the sea.
  - ThrustVectoring 3y ago
    You don't even need to run it as a tunnel the entire way through - Chesapeake Bay has vehicular traffic routed through a combination bridge/tunnel, using tunnels to span the two major shipping channels crossed by the complex.
    - mcv 3y ago
      The A10 ring in Amsterdam does the same on the east side. The west is all tunnel, the east is half tunnel half bridge.
  - palmfacehn 3y ago
    Baltimore has been in a steady state of decline as long as I can recall. Industry has constantly moved away. https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/as-residents-leave-baltimore-named-among-top-15-shrinking-us-cities https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/as-residents-leave-balti... >“There’s a lot of people staying [in those cities] and we want to be sure they’re not left with an excess of infrastructure that’s impossible to maintain,” he said. “So what do we do about it?”
LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
> out of control for some reason... I think the whole ship went dark for a moment. That may have had an impact on the rudder, and then some strong current and/or wind, pushing it sideways. Couldn't see tug-boats.
- dgritsko 3y ago
  Was watching CNN around 6AM EDT, they had a reporter on scene who mentioned wind "whipping across" the harbor. This was in reference to the potential survivability of the freezing cold water, but it seems likely it could have been a factor in pushing the ship off course as well.
layer8 3y ago
To be able to reach the port. You could argue that such bridges shouldn’t be built in front of ports, but the public also doesn’t like having to drive long detours, and the likelihood of an incident like this one is very low.

oliviabenson 3y ago

We notice these type of accidents because they’re so rare. 5k+ people die each year because of large trucks on the road, by comparison, boats and bridges are very safe — that’s why it’s allowed.

3seashells 3y ago
[dead]

bombcar 3y ago

Because bridges over harbors are quite common an incidents like this are rare.

mcv 3y ago
The Dutch ports of both Amsterdam and Rotterdam have no bridges at all. It's all tunnels. I think that's the best way to go; the least chance of conflict between road and water traffic.
- keenmaster 3y ago
  Often in America the government waits for something to fail miserably before engaging in a high effort high cost activity that requires a lot of coordination and public buy-in.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Wow. Random ship hits a bridge. Shakes fist at sky "the government".
    - Muromec 3y ago
      But that's what you do with random events -- create policies to prevent them from happening, lowering the incidence rate and minimizing damage once it occurs. Which is exactly what government and laws are all about.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        That is a generous reading of the parent comment. It sounded much more like a common trope, "the do-nothing government just lets things fail, doesn't take action until something fails".
    - etempleton 3y ago
      The amount of arm chair quarterbacking here is astounding. Reddit has a more nuanced conversation than HN right now. A bridge got hit by a container ship at speed and folks here are talking about this like the bridge was not up to standard, or why there was a bridge there at all when they know nothing about the locale. I am not a structural engineer, but I am going to go ahead and guess that not much would still be standing from a direct hit from a container ship. And from observation bridges like this exist all over the world and don’t regularly get struck by container ships. It was a freak accident. If we want to point fingers or question things, perhaps if anything the question is why the container ship lost power repeatedly? Was this a known issue before leaving port?
      - mcv 3y ago
        > A bridge got hit by a container ship at speed and folks here are talking about this like the bridge was not up to standard, or why there was a bridge there at all when they know nothing about the locale. You're right, I don't. But I do know there are other locales where they seem to explicitly avoid bridges crossing heavy ocean traffic.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Tunnels can have other issues: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tunnel_fires https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tunnel_fires and given American drivers I think I’ll take my chances with the big old boats.
mopenstein 3y ago
All roads should be underground! What if a plane crashes into a surface road? Or a meteor? Somebody think of the children!
- astrodust 3y ago
  After making all roads underground: "Tunnel collapses are killing all our children! Let's make all roads above ground!"

mvdtnz 3y ago

Not unlikely? Can you point us to all the other times this has happened? You must know of several given your knowledge of how obviously likely this is.

rpeden 3y ago
It's not especially common, but the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay is a famous example. Similar circumstances - it collapsed after being hit by a ship.
- 3seashells 3y ago
  [dead]
- pirate787 3y ago
  The replacement bridge in Tampa famously added "dolphins" which are bumpers in the water to protect the bridge pylons.
- ZanyProgrammer 3y ago
  that collapsed almost 40 years ago, which really emphasizes it's flat out uncommon, no "buts" needed.
SonOfLilit 3y ago
Downvoted for unkindness towards internet stranger.
armchairdweller 3y ago
When has "nothing will happen as long as we can carefully navigate our massive vessels around these critical pillars" ever been a trustable safety measure? Over the long term shit like this will happen if it the possibility that it happens is not excluded by other measures. This is a public bridge 5 years in the making and who knows how long in planning, and people have been extremely lucky that it collapsed at 3am and not in the middle of the day. It doesn't matter at all how unlikely this is in a given time frame if the impact if it happens at any point in time is catastrophic.

rpeden 3y ago

Because the Port of Baltimore is a very major port, and not allowing ships under it really isn't an option. Vertical clearance for ship traffic might have been the reason this kind of bridge was built in the first place. Otherwise, something lower and more causeway-like might have been sufficient.

mcv 3y ago
If it's a very major port, they can afford to make it a tunnel.
- c5karl 3y ago
  The Patapsco is much wider here than at the locations of the two tunnels. It would have been a much bigger and more expensive project to build a tunnel that long.
- adestefan 3y ago
  There already are two tunnels for I-95 and I-895 under the port.
  - mcv 3y ago
    Then why is this one a bridge? Why not go all the way and make this a tunnel too?
    - xav0989 3y ago
      Mostly to have a hazmat route around the city (HAZMAT trucks aren’t allowed in the tunnels) and because bridges are cheaper than tunnels. They needed a third crossing because the traffic warranted it.
      - mcv 3y ago
        > Mostly to have a hazmat route around the city (HAZMAT trucks aren’t allowed in the tunnels) That is a very interesting point I hadn't considered at all. Price is an obvious point, but I hadn't considered hazmat. It does make me wonder how hazmat traffic is handled around Amsterdam. I think they are allowed in some tunnels here.

317070 3y ago

If bridges and container ships indeed do not go together (something I don't necessarily agree with), you probably want to take away the public bridge and continue to let ships go by. This is economically speaking for the area. Car traffic is just not very efficient in the comparison between the two. Edit: of course there are a ton of other solutions here as well. I am disagreeing with the parent that it is the cars which should get to stay and the container ships which have to move.

mcv 3y ago
You can have smaller container ships. Or have the port outside the bridge. Or indeed replace the bridge with a tunnel, or a better bridge. Amsterdam has no bridges at all crossing the IJ on the west side (where sea-going ships come from) and only a single bridge on the east side (though there's often talk of adding another). Everything is tunnels. Rotterdam has bridges (including the famous Erasmusbrug), but only east of the port area. To the west, everything is tunnels. And the largest ships don't even come close to the city center, but dock at the Maasvlakte out at sea. For both cities, ports have constantly moved closer to the sea.
- ThrustVectoring 3y ago
  You don't even need to run it as a tunnel the entire way through - Chesapeake Bay has vehicular traffic routed through a combination bridge/tunnel, using tunnels to span the two major shipping channels crossed by the complex.
  - mcv 3y ago
    The A10 ring in Amsterdam does the same on the east side. The west is all tunnel, the east is half tunnel half bridge.
- palmfacehn 3y ago
  Baltimore has been in a steady state of decline as long as I can recall. Industry has constantly moved away. https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/as-residents-leave-baltimore-named-among-top-15-shrinking-us-cities https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/as-residents-leave-balti... >“There’s a lot of people staying [in those cities] and we want to be sure they’re not left with an excess of infrastructure that’s impossible to maintain,” he said. “So what do we do about it?”

LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago

> out of control for some reason... I think the whole ship went dark for a moment. That may have had an impact on the rudder, and then some strong current and/or wind, pushing it sideways. Couldn't see tug-boats.

dgritsko 3y ago
Was watching CNN around 6AM EDT, they had a reporter on scene who mentioned wind "whipping across" the harbor. This was in reference to the potential survivability of the freezing cold water, but it seems likely it could have been a factor in pushing the ship off course as well.

layer8 3y ago

To be able to reach the port. You could argue that such bridges shouldn’t be built in front of ports, but the public also doesn’t like having to drive long detours, and the likelihood of an incident like this one is very low.