NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Kerwa wrote:

Which is why the approach to the problem these days is to put the piers on artificial islands so the ship will run aground before reaching them. And of course not building bridges downstream of massive container ports.

That’s not always a viable solution.

You’re talking about rerouting a highway. Thats not a viable solution either.

What’s not viable?

Kerwa wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
That’s not always a viable solution.

You’re talking about rerouting a highway. Thats not a viable solution either.

What’s not viable?

Building an artificial island or rerouting a highway.

San Lumen wrote:

Kerwa wrote:
What’s not viable?

Building an artificial island or rerouting a highway.

Both are perfectly viable.

San Lumen wrote:

Kerwa wrote:
What’s not viable?

Building an artificial island or rerouting a highway.

Tell that to the Øresund bridge-tunnel.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Building an artificial island or rerouting a highway.

Both are perfectly viable.

Baltimore is a major port. Building an artificial island isn’t practical when you have so many ships going in and out.

Where do you propose rerouting the Highway the bridge carried?

San Lumen wrote:

Kerwa wrote:
What’s not viable?

Building an artificial island or rerouting a highway.

It’s done all time. Or they could move the port.

San Lumen wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
Both are perfectly viable.

Baltimore is a major port. Building an artificial island isn’t practical when you have so many ships going in and out.

Where do you propose rerouting the Highway the bridge carried?

Two islands at least. And yes, it could be done easily.

Kerwa wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Baltimore is a major port. Building an artificial island isn’t practical when you have so many ships going in and out.

Where do you propose rerouting the Highway the bridge carried?

Two islands at least. And yes, it could be done easily.

How wide do you think the river is? That’s less space for ships.
Moving the port is even more ridiculous a solution.

San Lumen wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
Both are perfectly viable.

Baltimore is a major port. Building an artificial island isn’t practical when you have so many ships going in and out.

As Risottia has already pointed out, that minor and inconsequential body of water known as the Baltic Sea might respectfully choose to disagree.

San Lumen wrote:

Kerwa wrote:
Two islands at least. And yes, it could be done easily.

How wide do you think the river is? That’s less space for ships.
Moving the port is even more ridiculous a solution.

Significantly wider than 1200 feet.

There's plenty of room.

The Archregimancy wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Baltimore is a major port. Building an artificial island isn’t practical when you have so many ships going in and out.

As Risottia has already pointed out, that minor and inconsequential body of water known as the Baltic Sea might respectfully choose to disagree.

You could have gone with the Chesapeake bay bridge-tunnel. You know the one that is just a wee bit downstream from Baltimore

San Lumen wrote:

Kerwa wrote:
Two islands at least. And yes, it could be done easily.

How wide do you think the river is? That’s less space for ships.
Moving the port is even more ridiculous a solution.

I can imagine you in Ancient Rome complaining about Claudius’ new harbor at Portus: “it’s ridiculous!” etc.

Meanwhile..

“Nothing is safe,” wrote “manosphere” influencer Andrew Tate on X, about six hours after a container ship collided with the bridge. “Black Swan Event imminent.”

“This is a BLACK SWAN event,” asserted Gen Mike Flynn, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, on X. Others, including Benny Johnson, Laura Loomer and some verified QAnon-affiliated accounts, also latched on to the “black swan event” language, many claiming that the collapse was terrorism related.

“Looks deliberate to me. A cyber-attack is probable. WW3 has already started,” wrote Infowars’ Alex Jones on X.

A black swan event has been co-opted by the right to describe a deliberate act by the government to distract from some major move by the Deep State to destroy America.

San Lumen wrote:

Kerwa wrote:
Two islands at least. And yes, it could be done easily.

How wide do you think the river is? That’s less space for ships.
Moving the port is even more ridiculous a solution.

San, just stop. You don't know the first fucking thing about shipping and port design. You're talking out your ass and embarrassing yourself.

Tarsonis wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
How wide do you think the river is? That’s less space for ships.
Moving the port is even more ridiculous a solution.

San, just stop. You don't know the first fucking thing about shipping and port design. You're talking out your ass and embarrassing yourself.

Moving the port of a Baltimore is totally moronic solution.

San Lumen wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
San, just stop. You don't know the first fucking thing about shipping and port design. You're talking out your ass and embarrassing yourself.

Moving the port of a Baltimore is totally moronic solution.

Creating small islands however is not.

San Lumen wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
San, just stop. You don't know the first fucking thing about shipping and port design. You're talking out your ass and embarrassing yourself.

Moving the port of a Baltimore is totally moronic solution.

It happens all the time, whether building new airports or finding it's better to build a new port based on better infrastructure over trying to upgrade a port based on bad infrastructure for modern purposes.

It's not moving the entire city of Baltimore, it's building a port more suited and better positioned for modern super cargo ships so that Baltimore remains competitive.

San Lumen wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
San, just stop. You don't know the first fucking thing about shipping and port design. You're talking out your ass and embarrassing yourself.

Moving the port of a Baltimore is totally moronic solution.

You have no frame of reference to even begin to be able to make that determination. You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.

Bombadil wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Moving the port of a Baltimore is totally moronic solution.

It happens all the time, whether building new airports or finding it's better to build a new port based on better infrastructure over trying to upgrade a port based on bad infrastructure for modern purposes.

It's not moving the entire city of Baltimore, it's building a port more suited and better positioned for modern super cargo ships so that Baltimore remains competitive.

It already is. It’s one of the busiest ports in the country.

In HK they're considering not having a port at all, instead the ships slows as it passes, is off-loaded on the move, re-loaded on the move and then off it goes.

Shipping is about shaving minutes and hours off the time it takes to traverse from one port to another, actually docking is inefficient.

Bombadil wrote:In HK they're considering not having a port at all, instead the ships slows as it passes, is off-loaded on the move, re-loaded on the move and then off it goes.

Shipping is about shaving minutes and hours off the time it takes to traverse from one port to another, actually docking is inefficient.

That sounds horribly complicated, I wonder how they would manage to unload a moving ship?

Herador wrote:

Bombadil wrote:In HK they're considering not having a port at all, instead the ships slows as it passes, is off-loaded on the move, re-loaded on the move and then off it goes.

Shipping is about shaving minutes and hours off the time it takes to traverse from one port to another, actually docking is inefficient.

That sounds horribly complicated, I wonder how they would manage to unload a moving ship?

Ports are horribly complicated already, supply chains are incredibly fine-tuned these days, which is why a pandemic let alone a ship getting stuck in the Suez Canal causes such incredible disruption.

You can have moving floating ports, they're already used in places where the water isn't deep enough near land to build a normal port.

Named the Rozy Pioneer, Cargill’s massive platform debuted in India that same year, 1998, featuring integrated cranes that unload more than 55,000 metric tons of dry bulk commodities while simultaneously loading other cargo for exporting. Floating five miles off the coast, goods are quickly unloaded from ships onto smaller barges, then ferried to shore for ground distribution.

Neutraligon wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Moving the port of a Baltimore is totally moronic solution.

Creating small islands however is not.

If only there was a way to move those islands farther away from the channel, like a long bridge span where the deck is supported by cables strung from a tower...

It's probably not a bad idea for Baltimore to build a spanking new port anyway, the newer MSC Class ships are fucking enormous and ports need to adjust much as airports did when the Airbus 300 came out.

Building a new port would upgrade Baltimore, create jobs, the old port is prime real estate that can be re-fitted into housing, arcades, shopping for tourism..

..frankly there are many reasons for building a new port in a space a little more suited.

Bombadil wrote:It's probably not a bad idea for Baltimore to build a spanking new port anyway, the newer MV Class ships are fucking enormous and ports need to adjust much as airports did when the Airbus 300 came out.

Building a new port would upgrade Baltimore, create jobs, the old port is prime real estate that can be re-fitted into housing, arcades, shopping for tourism..

..frankly there are many reasons for building a new port in a space a little more suited.

Where do you propose to build the new port?