Baltimore Bridge May Take 10 Years to Rebuild

[para bellum]

Height is being decided, may be the same or may be higher, its a cost/benefit analysis issue
to 50' deep from 42' now
to 700' wide from 580' now

If you want to research click on Appendix-B, "Engineering"

Seagirt Loop Channel

That project is just the modifications to the Seagirt Loop Channel and one of the branch channels. It has nothing to do with the bridge or main channels, etc.

"In 2020, USACE, in partnership with MPA, launched the Seagirt Loop Channel Deepening Feasibility Study, which examined navigation efficiencies and transportation cost savings that could be gained by improving the Seagirt Loop Channel to better accommodate the ultra large container vessels, or “post-Panamax vessels”, calling at SMT. These vessels carry twice the cargo and require deeper water depths than the ships that were used to design the current access channels to the SMT.

Currently, ships calling on the Seagirt Marine Terminal must back out of the terminal using the Dundalk-Seagirt Access Channels. This maneuver causes delays for incoming ship traffic and creates unnecessary risk for groundings and collisions with other vessels."

Army Corps completes Baltimore’s Seagirt Loop Channel Study Report; identifies $64 million

Lt. Gen. Scott A. Spellmon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commanding General and 55th U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, signed a Chief's Report for Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Modification of

www.nab.usace.army.mil

 

[Jarlaxle]

Let me put it to you in technical terms

If a modern super tanker or container ship tries to pass under a bridge that is too low, it will take it down. Basic physics

The Port of Baltimore could handle ships from the 70s but not modern super ships

So,you have no idea. As expected.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you really that stupid?
The Port of Baltimore has been unable to handle super sized ships for decades

Lies.

 

[para bellum]

Higher bridge, deeper channels to accommodate larger ships
Modernize port facilities to load and unload ships more efficiently

The FSK was 185' above MHW, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is 186', and the Bridge of the Americas is 190'.

Making a new FSK that is substantially higher doesn't gain anything. The upper limit on the ships is set by the Bridge of the Americas and the size of the locks on the canal. The channel depths and larger cranes to handle New Panamax ships are already in place in Baltimore.

There is a dredging project to make moving the New Panamax ships in and out of the Seagirt Marine Terminal more efficient. That is either underway already, or they are getting ready to issue the contracts- I'm not sure.

Basically there isn't a lot they need to do. They had already done most of the expansion needed to handle these large ships.

Just fix the bridge, and get back to business....

 

[kyzr]

That project is just the modifications to the Seagirt Loop Channel and one of the branch channels. It has nothing to do with the bridge or main channels, etc.

"In 2020, USACE, in partnership with MPA, launched the Seagirt Loop Channel Deepening Feasibility Study, which examined navigation efficiencies and transportation cost savings that could be gained by improving the Seagirt Loop Channel to better accommodate the ultra large container vessels, or “post-Panamax vessels”, calling at SMT. These vessels carry twice the cargo and require deeper water depths than the ships that were used to design the current access channels to the SMT.

Currently, ships calling on the Seagirt Marine Terminal must back out of the terminal using the Dundalk-Seagirt Access Channels. This maneuver causes delays for incoming ship traffic and creates unnecessary risk for groundings and collisions with other vessels."

The study showed that the design ship was getting much bigger, so that should include the main channel.
If it wasn't included originally, I bet it is now that the FSK bridge is being replaced.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The study showed that the design ship was getting much bigger, so that should include the main channel.
If it wasn't included originally, I bet it is now that the FSK bridge is being replaced.

View attachment 927943

It's not an issue, the limit is the Panama Canal bridges.

 

[Markle]

Jarlaxle is 100% correct!​

These are the limits of the Panama Canal. If a ship can't fit through it, it won't be built.

The Panama Canal has specific size limits for ships transiting its locks. These limits include12345:

1. Length: Overall vessel length should not exceed 950 ft.
2. Width: The maximum width allowed is 106 feet.
3. Draft: The allowable draft is 39.5 ft. in Tropical Fresh Water (TWF).
4. Height: Vessel height is limited to 190 ft. from the waterline to the highest point.
5. Cargo Capacity: The canal's current size restrictions mean that smaller vessels with capacities of approximately 400,000-550,000 barrels of light sweet crude oil, known as Panamax tankers, are the only ships that can safely pass through the canal.

 

[para bellum]

The study showed that the design ship was getting much bigger, so that should include the main channel.
If it wasn't included originally, I bet it is now that the FSK bridge is being replaced.

You know I saw that before, and I noticed the design ship was larger than the New Panamax ships (and too big to transit the canal).

The Wiki page does not give a height, but it says 52'6" draft which is deeper than the 50' channels in the Baltimore harbor plans. The study says the Marco Polo is only 47'6" draft, so hmmm?

The Dali's draft on it's wiki page says 49'4" which barely makes it.

But even if they make the FSK higher, they are still dealing with the Chesapeake Bay bridge- that 185' still limits the ships that can make it up to to Baltimore even if they're too big for the Panama Canal.

Now having said all that, I am not saying they won't build the new bridge a little bit higher. Somewhere in there, is a paragraph about sea level rise, and something to the effect that the Chesapeake Bay bridge may have to be replaced by 2040 (or thereabouts).

So I won't be surprised if they add a little extra clearance to the new FSK as a hedge against SLR.

 

[otto105]

And I have no doubt the cost will be 50X what they budgeted at the start.

To put a man on the moon required seven years, eight months, and 23 days.

Hoover Dam took six years, two months, and four days after the first shovelful of dirt was moved to become fully operational and producing electricity.

The Roman Coliseum in Rome took 5 years to construct 2,000 years ago.

The Empire State Building was completed after just one year and 45 days of construction.

Golden Gate Bridge took 4 years to build.


Welcome to the 21st century.

Baltimore bridge rebuild could take up to 10 years

The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore originally took five years to build and opened in 1977.

www.fox4news.com

Only is someone was stupid enough to hire a trump branded construction company.

 

[para bellum]

Jarlaxle is 100% correct!​

These are the limits of the Panama Canal. If a ship can't fit through it, it won't be built.

Oh, there are lots of ships that are too large for the canal. They go around the capes, or are used on trans-atlantic or trans-pacific routes.

The Panama Canal has specific size limits for ships transiting its locks. These limits include12345:

1. Length: Overall vessel length should not exceed 950 ft.
2. Width: The maximum width allowed is 106 feet.
3. Draft: The allowable draft is 39.5 ft. in Tropical Fresh Water (TWF).
4. Height: Vessel height is limited to 190 ft. from the waterline to the highest point.
5. Cargo Capacity: The canal's current size restrictions mean that smaller vessels with capacities of approximately 400,000-550,000 barrels of light sweet crude oil, known as Panamax tankers, are the only ships that can safely pass through the canal.

You missed the new locks which are much larger...

Neopanamax​

Construction of another set of larger locks led to the creation of the "Neopanamax" or "New Panamax" ship classification, based on the new locks' dimensions of 427 m (1,401 ft) in length, 55 m (180 ft) in beam, and 18.3 m (60.0 ft) in depth.[2] Naval architects and civil engineers began taking into account these dimensions for container ships.[13] With the new locks, the Panama Canal is able to handle vessels with overall length of 366 m (1201 feet), 49 meters beam (increased by the Canal Authority effective 1 June 2018 to 51.25 meters, to accommodate ships with 20 rows of containers) and 15.2 meters draft,[2] and cargo capacity up to 14,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU);[14] previously, it could only handle vessels up to about 5,000 TEU.[15] The Neopanamax standard accommodates ships up to 120,000 DWT.[8]

 

[Markle]

Oh, there are lots of ships that are too large for the canal. They go around the capes, or are used on trans-atlantic or trans-pacific routes.

You missed the new locks which are much larger...

Neopanamax​

Construction of another set of larger locks led to the creation of the "Neopanamax" or "New Panamax" ship classification, based on the new locks' dimensions of 427 m (1,401 ft) in length, 55 m (180 ft) in beam, and 18.3 m (60.0 ft) in depth.[2] Naval architects and civil engineers began taking into account these dimensions for container ships.[13] With the new locks, the Panama Canal is able to handle vessels with overall length of 366 m (1201 feet), 49 meters beam (increased by the Canal Authority effective 1 June 2018 to 51.25 meters, to accommodate ships with 20 rows of containers) and 15.2 meters draft,[2] and cargo capacity up to 14,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU);[14] previously, it could only handle vessels up to about 5,000 TEU.[15] The Neopanamax standard accommodates ships up to 120,000 DWT.[8]

The size of the locks is not the required measurement for the ships. Duhhhhh

Panama City, Panama, June 14, 2021 – Ahead of the fifth anniversary of its expansion, the Panama Canal has increased the maximum allowable length for vessels transiting the Neopanamax Locks. Since May 21, the maximum length overall (LOA) for commercial and non-commercial vessels acceptable for regular transits of the Neopanamax Locks is 370.33 meters (1,215 feet), up from 367.28 meters (1,205 feet).

Panama Canal Extends Maximum Length Overall and Increases Draft for Neopanamax Locks - Autoridad del Canal de Panamá

Panama Canal Extends Maximum Length Overall and Increases Draft for Neopanamax Locks The waterway begins to accommodate vessels up to 370.33 meters in maximum length overall and announces a 15.24-meter (50-foot) draft ahead of the expansion’s fifth anniversary Panama City, Panama, June 14, 2021...

pancanal.com

 

[para bellum]

The size of the locks is not the required measurement for the ships. Duhhhhh

Well yes it is, because if the ship is larger than the lock it doesn't fit! Hello?

Notice the maximum size for the ship is SMALLER than the size of the lock itself? Have you ever locked through on a boat? (I have)

For the Panama Canal, the maximum HEIGHT is determined by the bridge it has to pass under (Bridge of the Americas). The maximum LENGTH, BEAM, and DRAFT are based on the dimensions of the lock chambers.

 

[Rambunctious]

If you want it built in record time and the ship owner to pay for it elect Trump....

 

[Markle]

Well yes it is, because if the ship is larger than the lock it doesn't fit! Hello?

Notice the maximum size for the ship is SMALLER than the size of the lock itself? Have you ever locked through on a boat? (I have)

For the Panama Canal, the maximum HEIGHT is determined by the bridge it has to pass under (Bridge of the Americas). The maximum LENGTH, BEAM, and DRAFT are based on the dimensions of the lock chambers.

Thus my post.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If this happened in China they would have this thing rebuilt in like two days

 

[para bellum]

Thus my post.

Read your post #147. Look at the ship dims.
Read my post #150 Look at the dims.

Tell me what you don't understand, because I don't understand your snark response:

"The size of the locks is not the required measurement for the ships. Duhhhhh"

 

[Markle]

Read your post #147. Look at the ship dims.
Read my post #150 Look at the dims.

Tell me what you don't understand, because I don't understand your snark response:

"The size of the locks is not the required measurement for the ships. Duhhhhh"

 

[Weatherman2020]

Only is someone was stupid enough to hire a trump branded construction company.

TDS!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Keep in mind:

That guy is estimating the time from the time the first engineer's pencil hits the first piece of paper. Not just the construction time.

And for sure it will be less than ten years.

That’s still ten years.

Mankind went from Wright Brothers to walking on the moon in 60 years.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Well let's get private citizen trump on this ASAP.
Nobody Knows Infastucture like trump does.

WTF is Baltimore waiting for.
Call trump today.

They should.