6 ms·

Rebuild cost: $600m [0] I do hope We the People have zealous advocates. [0]https://news.sky.com/story/baltimore-trade-implications-from-francis-scott-key-brid

Rebuild cost: $600m [0] I do hope We the People have zealous advocates. [0]https://news.sky.com/story/baltimore-trade-implications-from-francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-as-rebuild-could-cost-600m-13102108 https://news.sky.com/story/baltimore-trade-implications-from...

eastbound 3y ago
I hope not. I was irresponsible to let ships pass a dozen times a day through a flimsy contraption that could collapse at the first nudge. This risk was unacceptable. Unacceptable! The people of Baltimore have benefited for years of a port facility literally downtown, which is practically the same thing as building houses in a flood zone. Should have never been permitted! I hope “We The People” accepts the responsibility for their actions!
- buster3000 3y ago
  the use of "flimsy contraption" and "first nudge" indicates your level of ignorance of the subject. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali#Description "Description Dali is a Neopanamax container ship[7] with an overall length of 299.92 metres (984 ft), beam of 48.2 metres (158 ft 2 in), moulded depth of 24.8 metres (81 ft 4 in), and summer draft of 15.03 metres (49 ft 4 in). Her gross and net tonnages are 91,128 and 52,150, respectively, and her deadweight tonnage is 116,851 tonnes. Her container capacity is 9,971 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU).[2][8] Dali is propelled by a single low-speed two-stroke crosshead diesel engine coupled to a fixed-pitch propeller. Her main engine, a 9-cylinder MAN-B&W 9S90ME-C9.2[9] unit manufactured by Hyundai Heavy Industries under license, is rated 41,480 kW (55,630 hp) at 82.5 rpm.[2] Her service speed is 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph).[5] For maneuvering in ports, Dali has a single 3,000 kW (4,000 hp) bow thruster. Electricity is generated onboard by two 3,840 kW (5,150 hp) and two 4,400 kW (5,900 hp) auxiliary diesel generators.[4] "
  - KingMob 3y ago
    Pretty sure they're being sarcastic.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      Can you explain?
      - ThunderSizzle 3y ago
        It obviously reads as satire.
        refulgentis 3y ago
        Could I bother you explain? I'm slow and I don't see it. Just reads as a bad take.
        KingMob 3y ago
        The level of "outrage" deliberately exceeds the reasonableness of their position, which strongly suggests they're being sarcastic. - They use "unacceptable" twice in a row, which sounds exaggerated. - Likewise with all the exclamation points. - They say "It was irresponsible to let ships pass a dozen times a day through a flimsy contraption that could collapse at the first nudge.", but ships pass under bridges all the time. IIRC, in Baltimore's case, I'm not even sure you can exit the inner harbor without going under that bridge. - "The people of Baltimore have benefited for years of a port facility literally downtown, which is practically the same thing as building houses in a flood zone. Should have never been permitted!" Ports are literally designed to be on water, and the comparison makes no sense. Combined with the exclamation points, I don't think this is serious. - "I hope “We The People” accepts the responsibility for their actions!" This is comedic. You have the excess exclamation point, and it even implies that we're collectively to blame for this.
  - rwmj 3y ago
    This does raise the question of whether the new bridge will need to be larger and stronger. Will it need to be designed to withstand the hit from these new larger vessels?
- frankharv 3y ago
  "We The People" didn't try and operate a vessel with containers stacked so high its ridiculous. Where were the tugboats? Bridges are not bumper cars. You cannot hit them. To call it flimsy when the bridge carried 34,000 cars a day is silly. I should not pay for gross misconduct. Why did the boat leave the pier with a faulty engine?
  - defrost 3y ago
    The reality is complicated, there are liability arguments on both sides and a deal to be struck that'll land most costs on one party over another. * Where were the tugboats? * Why did the boat leave the pier with a faulty engine? The ship was still within harbour waters under the control of local harbour pilots. They didn't have tugboats within near distance and they took the engine status on good faith. As a risk management exercise if you run a harbour with high traffic then eventually a ship will have an engine|rudder|other failure within harbour waters and bridges will be struck with glancing to major blows. It's an older bridge built before ship sizes grew, was the harbour infrastructure lagging behind the nature of the traffic it purported to serve? Other harbours have pylons protected with substantial barriers, other harbours ban traffic | workers on cross harbour bridges when ships move (eg: Tasmania after they had a ship hit a bridge). The ship maintainance was very likely at fault, the harbour should have mitigation plans against ship faults, etc.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    > Where were the tugboats? Bridges are not bumper cars. You cannot hit them. Through a bridges lifetime in a busy shipping lane you can expect it to get hit. Thus any reasonable bridge is designed with, or has barriers retrofitted to them. It just US infrastructure lagging behind as is typical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure) https://www.drba.net/drba-proceeds-new-bridge-ship-collision-protection-system https://www.drba.net/drba-proceeds-new-bridge-ship-collision...
rkrzr 3y ago
I suspect that the actual cost to rebuild the bridge will be far higher than that. Initial estimates of large public works projects are virtually always too low, and actual costs can easily be 5-10 times higher. There is a great book about this phenomenon (and how to avoid it) by Brent Flyvbjerg called "How Big Things Get Done".
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  Not only that. you have to dismantle the old one and you will pay premium trying to get the new one done as quickly as possible.
- ignoramous 3y ago
  > estimates of large public works projects are always too low, and actual costs can be 5-10 times higher. The most recent example I can think of is England's High Speed 2 going from £35b to (est) £170b: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#Funding
  - rjsw 3y ago
    A fair bit of the cost increase of HS2 was NIMBYs wanting it to be in tunnels after the route had been chosen, replacing a bridge should be easier to estimate.
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      Do you think that NIMBY factor won't apply when replacing this bridge? And are you really certain that "replacing a bridge" can't or won't turn into building some tunnels during the process, as some people are already suggesting? IMHO everything is possible.
- sverhagen 3y ago
  What helps push down prices of bridges, is to not build them in US. Or at least, it always strikes me how outlandishly expensive infrastructure projects are in the US (for me coming from Europe, originally).
NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
That seems an amazing value. Here in NYC, it costs $50-100M to build a subway elevator.
- nickburns 3y ago
  at quite literally impossible and only a fictionalized accounting to boot. too many cut checks, too many depository accounts, and never enough paper trail to know for sure. so yeah, maybe—maybe less, maybe more, maybe no one has even the slightest clue, not even within a wildly outrageous range, of the true monetary total cost of anything at public infrastructure scale.
anonu 3y ago
Given that there is sufficient capacity to route vehicle traffic to different paths, there is time to measure and plan: I would think people would look to a tunnel instead of a bridge in any rebuild of that route. There is a tunnel further south in the Chesapeake Bay where there are navy/military facilities that cannot risk being blocked by falling bridges.
- 0x0203 3y ago
  As I understand it, hazardous material loads cannot be transported through tunnels. So having a bridge that allows that (and prevents the need for hazmat loads being routed through the city center) does make some sense. I suspect the cost of a bridge replacement might also be cheaper than both a tunnel and redoing all the roadways and infrastructure leading up to it, but don't know for certain. If anyone has a more informed estimate, please share.

eastbound 3y ago

I hope not. I was irresponsible to let ships pass a dozen times a day through a flimsy contraption that could collapse at the first nudge. This risk was unacceptable. Unacceptable! The people of Baltimore have benefited for years of a port facility literally downtown, which is practically the same thing as building houses in a flood zone. Should have never been permitted! I hope “We The People” accepts the responsibility for their actions!

buster3000 3y ago
the use of "flimsy contraption" and "first nudge" indicates your level of ignorance of the subject. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali#Description "Description Dali is a Neopanamax container ship[7] with an overall length of 299.92 metres (984 ft), beam of 48.2 metres (158 ft 2 in), moulded depth of 24.8 metres (81 ft 4 in), and summer draft of 15.03 metres (49 ft 4 in). Her gross and net tonnages are 91,128 and 52,150, respectively, and her deadweight tonnage is 116,851 tonnes. Her container capacity is 9,971 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU).[2][8] Dali is propelled by a single low-speed two-stroke crosshead diesel engine coupled to a fixed-pitch propeller. Her main engine, a 9-cylinder MAN-B&W 9S90ME-C9.2[9] unit manufactured by Hyundai Heavy Industries under license, is rated 41,480 kW (55,630 hp) at 82.5 rpm.[2] Her service speed is 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph).[5] For maneuvering in ports, Dali has a single 3,000 kW (4,000 hp) bow thruster. Electricity is generated onboard by two 3,840 kW (5,150 hp) and two 4,400 kW (5,900 hp) auxiliary diesel generators.[4] "
- KingMob 3y ago
  Pretty sure they're being sarcastic.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Can you explain?
    - ThunderSizzle 3y ago
      It obviously reads as satire.
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        Could I bother you explain? I'm slow and I don't see it. Just reads as a bad take.
        KingMob 3y ago
        The level of "outrage" deliberately exceeds the reasonableness of their position, which strongly suggests they're being sarcastic. - They use "unacceptable" twice in a row, which sounds exaggerated. - Likewise with all the exclamation points. - They say "It was irresponsible to let ships pass a dozen times a day through a flimsy contraption that could collapse at the first nudge.", but ships pass under bridges all the time. IIRC, in Baltimore's case, I'm not even sure you can exit the inner harbor without going under that bridge. - "The people of Baltimore have benefited for years of a port facility literally downtown, which is practically the same thing as building houses in a flood zone. Should have never been permitted!" Ports are literally designed to be on water, and the comparison makes no sense. Combined with the exclamation points, I don't think this is serious. - "I hope “We The People” accepts the responsibility for their actions!" This is comedic. You have the excess exclamation point, and it even implies that we're collectively to blame for this.
- rwmj 3y ago
  This does raise the question of whether the new bridge will need to be larger and stronger. Will it need to be designed to withstand the hit from these new larger vessels?
frankharv 3y ago
"We The People" didn't try and operate a vessel with containers stacked so high its ridiculous. Where were the tugboats? Bridges are not bumper cars. You cannot hit them. To call it flimsy when the bridge carried 34,000 cars a day is silly. I should not pay for gross misconduct. Why did the boat leave the pier with a faulty engine?
- defrost 3y ago
  The reality is complicated, there are liability arguments on both sides and a deal to be struck that'll land most costs on one party over another. * Where were the tugboats? * Why did the boat leave the pier with a faulty engine? The ship was still within harbour waters under the control of local harbour pilots. They didn't have tugboats within near distance and they took the engine status on good faith. As a risk management exercise if you run a harbour with high traffic then eventually a ship will have an engine|rudder|other failure within harbour waters and bridges will be struck with glancing to major blows. It's an older bridge built before ship sizes grew, was the harbour infrastructure lagging behind the nature of the traffic it purported to serve? Other harbours have pylons protected with substantial barriers, other harbours ban traffic | workers on cross harbour bridges when ships move (eg: Tasmania after they had a ship hit a bridge). The ship maintainance was very likely at fault, the harbour should have mitigation plans against ship faults, etc.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  > Where were the tugboats? Bridges are not bumper cars. You cannot hit them. Through a bridges lifetime in a busy shipping lane you can expect it to get hit. Thus any reasonable bridge is designed with, or has barriers retrofitted to them. It just US infrastructure lagging behind as is typical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure) https://www.drba.net/drba-proceeds-new-bridge-ship-collision-protection-system https://www.drba.net/drba-proceeds-new-bridge-ship-collision...

rkrzr 3y ago

I suspect that the actual cost to rebuild the bridge will be far higher than that. Initial estimates of large public works projects are virtually always too low, and actual costs can easily be 5-10 times higher. There is a great book about this phenomenon (and how to avoid it) by Brent Flyvbjerg called "How Big Things Get Done".

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
Not only that. you have to dismantle the old one and you will pay premium trying to get the new one done as quickly as possible.
ignoramous 3y ago
> estimates of large public works projects are always too low, and actual costs can be 5-10 times higher. The most recent example I can think of is England's High Speed 2 going from £35b to (est) £170b: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#Funding
- rjsw 3y ago
  A fair bit of the cost increase of HS2 was NIMBYs wanting it to be in tunnels after the route had been chosen, replacing a bridge should be easier to estimate.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    Do you think that NIMBY factor won't apply when replacing this bridge? And are you really certain that "replacing a bridge" can't or won't turn into building some tunnels during the process, as some people are already suggesting? IMHO everything is possible.
sverhagen 3y ago
What helps push down prices of bridges, is to not build them in US. Or at least, it always strikes me how outlandishly expensive infrastructure projects are in the US (for me coming from Europe, originally).

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago

That seems an amazing value. Here in NYC, it costs $50-100M to build a subway elevator.

nickburns 3y ago
at quite literally impossible and only a fictionalized accounting to boot. too many cut checks, too many depository accounts, and never enough paper trail to know for sure. so yeah, maybe—maybe less, maybe more, maybe no one has even the slightest clue, not even within a wildly outrageous range, of the true monetary total cost of anything at public infrastructure scale.

anonu 3y ago

Given that there is sufficient capacity to route vehicle traffic to different paths, there is time to measure and plan: I would think people would look to a tunnel instead of a bridge in any rebuild of that route. There is a tunnel further south in the Chesapeake Bay where there are navy/military facilities that cannot risk being blocked by falling bridges.

0x0203 3y ago
As I understand it, hazardous material loads cannot be transported through tunnels. So having a bridge that allows that (and prevents the need for hazmat loads being routed through the city center) does make some sense. I suspect the cost of a bridge replacement might also be cheaper than both a tunnel and redoing all the roadways and infrastructure leading up to it, but don't know for certain. If anyone has a more informed estimate, please share.