Baltimore Bridge Collapse

[Bombadil]

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?

In Timbuctoo..

[San Lumen]

Where do you propose to build the new port?

In Timbuctoo..

Can you give a serious answer? Where do you propose the port be moved? Take a look at the region on google earth and get back to me.

[Jolthig]

The height restriction is for I-895. Regular trucks can still take I-95.

But yes, hazmats will need to use alternate routes.

So no height restriction on the I-95 tunnel?

Yeah.

[Bombadil]

In Timbuctoo..

Can you give a serious answer? Where do you propose the port be moved? Take a look at the region on google earth and get back to me.

There's plenty of places, take a look yourself.

[San Lumen]

Can you give a serious answer? Where do you propose the port be moved? Take a look at the region on google earth and get back to me.

There's plenty of places, take a look yourself.

Name some.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

Unless you don't want to trash more of the Chesapeake Bay environment. Building a better bridge, surrounded by piers or an artificial island is a much cheaper and quicker task.

[Bombadil]

There's plenty of places, take a look yourself.

Name some.

You're not the boss of me *slams door*

[Bombadil]

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.

Unless you don't want to trash more of the Chesapeake Bay environment. Building a better bridge, surrounded by piers or an artificial island is a much cheaper and quicker task.

I'm sure there's plenty options, I noted the potential for floating ports, build a lovely new modern one, build an artificial island.. there's plenty options to move it out of the inner harbour, away from bridges and actually more efficient than turning into the harbour, docking and then turning back out and around again.

[San Lumen]

Name some.

You're not the boss of me *slams door*

Therefore you have no solution or don’t care about the pristine environment of the Chesapeake Bay.

Where do you propose to build it?

[Bombadil]

You're not the boss of me *slams door*

Therefore you have no solution or don’t care about the pristine environment of the Chesapeake Bay.

Where do you propose to build it?

Like aircraft, the majority of pollution is stopping and starting, and you're happy to leave that within an enclosed harbour?

[San Lumen]

Therefore you have no solution or don’t care about the pristine environment of the Chesapeake Bay.

Where do you propose to build it?

Like aircraft, the majority of pollution is stopping and starting, and you're happy to leave that within an enclosed harbour?

Give me some locations for this new port of yours.

[Bombadil]

Like aircraft, the majority of pollution is stopping and starting, and you're happy to leave that within an enclosed harbour?

Give me some locations for this new port of yours.

I told you, Timbuctoo - I'm not a civil engineer nor am I particularly acquainted with Baltimore so I'm not going to spend hours researching and evaluating spots just so you can come up with some minor quibble because you can't accept there's better solutions.

[San Lumen]

Give me some locations for this new port of yours.

I told you, Timbuctoo - I'm not a civil engineer nor am I particularly acquainted with Baltimore so I'm not going to spend hours researching and evaluating spots just so you can come up with some minor quibble because you can't accept there's better solutions.

You’re the one who proposed closing one of the biggest ports on the East Coast so the onus is on you to provide a viable alternative. Google Earth is a thing.

[Ethel mermania]

Unless you don't want to trash more of the Chesapeake Bay environment. Building a better bridge, surrounded by piers or an artificial island is a much cheaper and quicker task.

I'm sure there's plenty options, I noted the potential for floating ports, build a lovely new modern one, build an artificial island.. there's plenty options to move it out of the inner harbour, away from bridges and actually more efficient than turning into the harbour, docking and then turning back out and around again.

The port isn't in the inner harbor anymore. That area has been cleaned and nicely built up. The baltimore ports are tighly coupled with railheads and other intermodal facilities.

I know we use artificial ports for LNG tankers around here, and for bulk shipments I can see it make sense. Not sure how it work with a container ship.

[Kerwa]

Like aircraft, the majority of pollution is stopping and starting, and you're happy to leave that within an enclosed harbour?

Give me some locations for this new port of yours.

Sparrow’s Point where the abandoned Bethlehem Steel plant is, and where they are already building a new container port. I would just make it bigger.

Honestly, you don’t seem to know very much about the city other than to whine about the lack of street cars and such.

[Bombadil]

I'm sure there's plenty options, I noted the potential for floating ports, build a lovely new modern one, build an artificial island.. there's plenty options to move it out of the inner harbour, away from bridges and actually more efficient than turning into the harbour, docking and then turning back out and around again.

The port isn't in the inner harbor anymore. That area has been cleaned and nicely built up. The baltimore ports are tighly coupled with railheads and other intermodal facilities.

I know we use artificial ports for LNG tankers around here, and for bulk shipments I can see it make sense. Not sure how it work with a container ship.

My preference would be an offshore port, which is especially beneficial to the US East Coast.

Similar developments can be seen on the East Coast of the U.S. Due to the same cascading effect and the fact that the biggest container vessels can sail direct via the Suez Canal straight to the U.S. East Coast, an option that is rapidly developing as an alternative for the New Panama Canal. The route via Suez has a greater degree of freedom in terms of ship sizes, especially when the planned increase in two-lane capacity is ready. The big question now is if and how quickly the U.S. East Coast ports can adjust to this development. New cranes have just been ordered and installed for the New Panamax vessel sizes. Some ports have dredged their channels and quays and widened their basins at substantial cost. Others aren’t yet ready to do this, which might be an advantage. Investing in an offshore port could be the best solution by providing a hub for a whole region with fewer limitations for long term development than is often the case in existing ports without limitations in free height (draft), which is an issue in New Jersey for instance, or for various environmental reasons.

...

It can also reduce the environmental impact and minimize the ecological footprint. By concentrating present and future development in one spot, an offshore port could work very well not just in Africa but also in the U.S. Currently, up to 70 percent of all West Coast containers move east by rail and road. If only 20 percent of these containers would shift from overland transport to all-water direct import via the Suez Canal to an East Coast offshore port, this would save:
• 20 to 30 percent on direct freight costs from the Far East to the U.S. East coast due to the all-water economy of larger scale shipping
• 30 to 40 percent (or even more) on direct freight costs due to 40 to 50 percent shorter overland transport distance in the U.S. itself
• 20 to 30 percent in emissions on the all-water-route (lower fuel consumption, more efficient engines) plus a 40 to 50 percent reduction in overland transport emissions.
The estimated overall cost reduction for an East Coast multi-user offshore hub compared to improving existing ports and relying on overland transport to be between 30 to 40 percent for both investment and operations. And lower freight costs could also mean lower consumer prices and therefore be better for the overall economy.

Link

[Ethel mermania]

The port isn't in the inner harbor anymore. That area has been cleaned and nicely built up. The baltimore ports are tighly coupled with railheads and other intermodal facilities.

I know we use artificial ports for LNG tankers around here, and for bulk shipments I can see it make sense. Not sure how it work with a container ship.

My preference would be an offshore port, which is especially beneficial to the US East Coast.

Similar developments can be seen on the East Coast of the U.S. Due to the same cascading effect and the fact that the biggest container vessels can sail direct via the Suez Canal straight to the U.S. East Coast, an option that is rapidly developing as an alternative for the New Panama Canal. The route via Suez has a greater degree of freedom in terms of ship sizes, especially when the planned increase in two-lane capacity is ready. The big question now is if and how quickly the U.S. East Coast ports can adjust to this development. New cranes have just been ordered and installed for the New Panamax vessel sizes. Some ports have dredged their channels and quays and widened their basins at substantial cost. Others aren’t yet ready to do this, which might be an advantage. Investing in an offshore port could be the best solution by providing a hub for a whole region with fewer limitations for long term development than is often the case in existing ports without limitations in free height (draft), which is an issue in New Jersey for instance, or for various environmental reasons.

...

It can also reduce the environmental impact and minimize the ecological footprint. By concentrating present and future development in one spot, an offshore port could work very well not just in Africa but also in the U.S. Currently, up to 70 percent of all West Coast containers move east by rail and road. If only 20 percent of these containers would shift from overland transport to all-water direct import via the Suez Canal to an East Coast offshore port, this would save:
• 20 to 30 percent on direct freight costs from the Far East to the U.S. East coast due to the all-water economy of larger scale shipping
• 30 to 40 percent (or even more) on direct freight costs due to 40 to 50 percent shorter overland transport distance in the U.S. itself
• 20 to 30 percent in emissions on the all-water-route (lower fuel consumption, more efficient engines) plus a 40 to 50 percent reduction in overland transport emissions.
The estimated overall cost reduction for an East Coast multi-user offshore hub compared to improving existing ports and relying on overland transport to be between 30 to 40 percent for both investment and operations. And lower freight costs could also mean lower consumer prices and therefore be better for the overall economy.

Link

Port Elizabeth (nj) just raised the Bayonne bridge.

Interesting. Thanks

[Bombadil]

Port Elizabeth (nj) just raised the Bayonne bridge.

Interesting. Thanks

Once in a while I'll leave my little island and head into the city and pass these gigantic ships coming in and out of HK, and frankly I marvel at the logistics involved in manufacturing a teddy bear in Guangzhou and getting it to some kid in Dayton Ohio.

In banking you have financial superhighways for the flow of money, currently London, NY, HK and Tokyo, like giant inter-tubes with truckloads of money chuntering down before being siphoned off to wherever.

Similarly I expect there will be 4-5 super hubs for shipping, one around Rotterdam-London, one in around HK-Shenzhen-Guangzhou, one around LA and one in the upper east coast of the US, perhaps around SG-Johor Bahru as well.

I imagine they'll be offshore as well.

[Forsher]

Well the problem with that is it almost makes perfect sense. Otoh, always pushing the limits on the size of your ships does have some negative consequences. I wonder if there's any worldwide standard limiting the size of these ships? Wouldn't bridge-builders want to know?

Well there's the Pan-Max which is the biggest dimensions that can traverse the Panama canal, but they're currently working on expanding the canal to suit a larger Pan-Max. And there's ships bigger than that, that don't go through the canal.

Other than that there really is no globally imposed limit.

The Panama canal would probably be better off investing in rain dancers.

A big ship hit the bridge I lived off of and all it did was stink up the place...

I have to say, despite the fact that downwards and sideways physics really are different things and being good at one doesn't imply the other, I'm increasingly getting the impression that there does seem like the expectation is that these bridges ought to be able to take a hit, even from really fucking huge ships. Which is honestly mind boggling. But I guess they are also designed to deal with tides in many cases.

I still think the solution is to remove all the water in the ocean.

Flag checks out.

[Nantoraka]

There's plenty of places, take a look yourself.

Name some.

The Moon

[Tangatarehua]

I'm not sure what horrifies me more: The bridge collapse or the sorry state of this thread.

[Katganistan]

I wonder how that even happened, how does a whole cargo ship lose power? I feel like they would have backup generators or something.

Watching the video it looks like they lost power, then regained it briefly, then lost it again just as it hit.

[Forsher]

I'm not sure what horrifies me more: The bridge collapse or the sorry state of this thread.

If the next mass casualty school shooting happens in a city, I hate to think what it's going to look like.

[Katganistan]

The tunnels are going to be absolute shit.

Many Trucks have to take alternate routes as there is a height restriction and hazardous materials are banned.

That too. That bridge needs to be rebuilt ASAP because until it is shipping from the port will be impacted, which basically affects the supply lines of the Eastern Seaboard.

Sending stuff on 40 or 1... those roads are not meant for that volume of traffic.

[Katganistan]

Structural engineering senior: bridges are not safe. Bridges can be safe if they are treated with care. Truss bridges are designed to be as cheap and light as possible. As long as the bolts don't fail (and nobody creates an unbalanced load) everything is fine. Otherwise, everything fails, as we've seen from this. Structures are not built to withstand terrorist attacks.

Indeed. I'd bet even John Augustus Roebling never considered whether the Brooklyn Bridge would withstand terrorist attacks.

The world has changed all around it...