Bridge Collapses in Baltimore
- Thread starter CYaeger
- Start date
So the bridge protection system could not have been updated as the size of ships grew? Or Baltimore Harbor limited to certain size ships? We have upgraded airports to take larger planes, including cargo planes. We often limit tractor trailers based on tonnage and limit routes hazardous materials can traverse. All of this done often after original construction.
I am sure they will take a look at waterway safety in the future, after this tragedy, but it would be nice if we can start foreseeing and limiting these accidents. Or else we can just add a nickel to the gas tax, or a few billion to the debt; and go on with blinders and no accountability cause "**** happens".
There was protection in place. There were harbor pilot(s) on board that can draw, by hand, the harbor with all the navigation buoys, hazards, underwater wrecks, prevailing current patterns, accurately. The ship lost power and a mayday went out. The DOT closed the bridge (else there would have been a lot more traffic). The ship, without power, dropped anchor to attempt to slow or stop. All sorts of protections were in place. In this instance the exact right combo to avoid a collision wasn't there, but it's not like the whole thing was thrown up without thought. Engineers can't predict the future any better than anyone else. What if an aircraft had hit the bridge instead? What if there was a catastrophic earthquake? A sharknado? A shartnado? Lots of things can go wrong, but not all can be predicted and designed for.
Port of Baltimore has limits on ship sizes. The port is not deep enough to take larger ships.
The size of the ship that hit the bridge is probably one of the smaller Trans Atlantic/Pacific ships still available.
If they don't take that they probably would need to start shutting their doors.
The Maritime industry is one of building bigger ships first and worry about infrastructure last. That is why backlogs at the ports is some of the worst in history.
It probably would make more sense to do a tunnel vs a new bridge at this point, if the ground allows
Sure would. If I had that ability I would also win the powerball and the megamillions and We Will would be fully funded.
Even if engineers could predict every possible random scenario, there aren't unlimited resources to spend protect against all those scenarios.
For example. We don't design buildings in Iowa to withstand magnitude 7.0 earth quakes, even though there is an above 0% chance that we get one. Hell, most buildings aren't designed to withstand tornadoes. Society determined that the cost was too high, and the risk low enough.
And yes, I realize the risk of a massive ship hitting a bridge that is crossed under many times per day is likely far greater than a building being hit by a tornado.
That system sounds more risky then having competent, experienced ship crews responsible for piloting the ship.
You are implying that the ship did not have those or that they should have been able to foresee the mechanical issues that arose and put them in that situation.
No I’m not implying either of those. Accidents happen, mechanical failures happen. Thats reality.
What I’m saying is putting a separate automated tug boat responsible for pulling every boat through the bridge passage just presents another point of failure in the process and is likely equal or more risky then relying on the ship to pilot itself.
The point is to have failsafe propulsion. If as in this case the ship is without power.
What could have the crew done differently? They lost power twice at very unfortunate times.
- Jun 20, 2006
- 38,333
- 22,646
- 113
My Dad, an ISU CE, was once asked by Duane Energy to build a structure that would last 10,000 years. His response “there are no specs to support that request. And none of us will never know if it will be successful”
Last edited:
I guess the protection I was referring to is what we see around bridge piers in modern day. I wasn't saying there was zero protection in place.
Yes. I don’t see why a second tugboat would result in failsafe propulsion. It is another boat which will also be at risk of suffering mechanical failures and human mistakes. The post I responded to also implied that the standard process would be for the tug boat to pull each boat through the harbor. That presents its own set of risks.
I don’t know that there is anything the crew could have done differently (we don’t know all the details yet). Like I said, accidents and equipment failures happen.
Tell me what system is failsafe and I'll tell you the situation that will make it fail.
The more protections you add the more it will cost. And the less likely the situation will be that causes failure.
But somewhere is a balance. Somewhere someone says we'd be better off not spending that money on "failsafe" and just deal with the outcome if it ever happens. Those conversations take place every day. One of the more well known are when a car company decides to issue a recall. Up to a point, it's cheaper to pay the families of people hurt or killed. After that point it's cheaper to issue a recall.
If only Grand Moff Tarkin had decided the additional cost would be no hinderance when it came to fixing that small thermal exhaust port just below the main port...
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Now you’ve got me worried about shartnadoes. How can our infrastructure be prepared for those?
I was reading this is a major hazmat route within Baltimore as they are not allowed to use the tunnels. So that may make replacing this with a tunnel undesirable (if the location would even be suitable)
Last edited:
