Baltimore Bridge

The amount of trash talking and 'conspiracies' on the Bridge are just ridiculous. Even politicians here suggesting that it was x persons fault etc.

The other thing is the repub's are saying the fed shouldn't assist in paying for the bridge to be replaced. If this had happened in Texas with a major port for example, they would be screaming for this to be done.

This is a major port, and anyone trying to play this for political gain is an idiot. This impacts EVERYONE. I hate politics when it's like this.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
It does however potentially explain a fair bit about the build quality of his cars :p

I can't imagine any actual qualified engineer even entertaining the idea unless there was no other option to ever build something else.
Besides anything else that isn't visible to the naked eye, there is going to be a lot of that metal that is bent and is going to be faster to replace than try and fit back together.

I also suspect any replacement is going to be a design that isn't "single point of failure", and will be built to current standards, not the standards of the 1960's.
Click to expand...
There is currently a big push in the industry to reuse existing/old steelwork, as long as not damaged. "circular economy". Lots of guides have been published to help engineers assess their capacity, and website to buy/sell old steel. So it wouldn't surprise me to potentially reuse whatever steel ie still intact/decent condition.
Chuk_Chuk said:
What does reuse mean in this context?

Do you mean fishing out the bits truss work giving it an inspection and maybe a protective coat before using it on a new project? Or is there more involved?
Click to expand...
I don't know I'm afraid. I haven't really had much opportunity to reuse steel to know its limitations.
 
Scougar said:
This is a major port, and anyone trying to play this for political gain is an idiot. This impacts EVERYONE. I hate politics when it's like this.
Click to expand...

Welp...

Driving the news: In a statement on laying out its "official position," the Freedom Caucus offered several proposed limits on the funding.

  1. That the U.S. seek "maximum liability" from the foreign shipping companies involved in the collision and draw from all available funds.
  2. That any federal funding allocated for the bridge be offset – likely with budget cuts – and that all "burdensome regulations," such as the Endangered Species Act, are waived.
  3. That the bill be "limited to the physical structure repairs with a federal nexus" and not include funding for any "unrelated projects."
  4. That the Biden administration lift its pause on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports "before Congress considers appropriating any funding for the bridge reconstruction."'
Click to expand...

(Source).
 
Last edited:
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland plans to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in just over four years at an estimated cost between $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion, a state transportation official said Thursday.
Click to expand...

apnews.com

Maryland officials release timeline, cost estimate, for rebuilding bridge

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland plans to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in just over four years at an estimated cost between $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion, a state transportation official said Thursday.
apnews.com apnews.com

Four years and almost 2 billion? Are these the same clowns that had a go at our HS2? :confused:
 
StriderX said:
Going by inflation it costs the same as it previous one, though in all likelihood it will cost probably twice as much.
Click to expand...
One thing to remember, I know it's fun to bash building projects and say "today it'll cost a lot more", whilst that's true much of the time it's because we tend to build with more safety margins and features from the outset and modern safety provisions for workers tends to add to the cost.
IIRC there was a bridge where it was one of the first to have a "safety net" under it during construction, a lot of people were upset about the cost/what it suggested (I think inc some of the construction crews/bosses), right up until it saved the first worker.
Sure you can work a lot faster without a safety harness, which can reduce the time it takes to build, but it also means you're likely to lose skilled personnel. The flip side is modern construction methods tend to be faster and less manpower intensive.

In this case any new bridge is going to have the added cost of additional safety features and "defences" against collisions with ships where possible.
 
200sols said:
Large infrastructure projects are not cheap are they?
Click to expand...

No, but I think in today's world where people talk about billions like it's the new million, people don't actually realise how much money it is. Two billion is two thousand million. That's a lot of cheddar, this bridge could very likely be built for 10% of that!
 
Last edited:
£1 million in £20 notes stacked is around 5.65 metres high.

£1 billion in £20 notes is 5650 metres high or about 2/3rds of the height of Everest, at around 3.5 miles.

The bridge cost around $60 million to build in the 1970s. Even with inflation that would only be about $450 million today. So $1.9 billion is insane.
 
Last edited:
MadMossy said:
£1 million in £20 notes stacked is around 5.65 metres high.

£1 billion in £20 notes is 5650 metres high or about 2/3rds of the height of Everest, at around 3.5 miles.

The bridge cost around $60 million to build in the 1970s. Even with inflation that would only be about $450 million today. So $1.9 billion is insane.
Click to expand...

Inflation doesn't take in to account increased design standards. Increased labour welfare. Increased safety requirements. So on, so forth.
 
MadMossy said:
£1 million in £20 notes stacked is around 5.65 metres high.

£1 billion in £20 notes is 5650 metres high or about 2/3rds of the height of Everest, at around 3.5 miles.

The bridge cost around $60 million to build in the 1970s. Even with inflation that would only be about $450 million today. So $1.9 billion is insane.
Click to expand...
450 million in inflation isn't equal for everything.
Remember "Inflation" as a headline number is an average of a lot of things.

for example the cost or certain raw materials and finished materials may go up far faster than any "average" inflation number, whilst other things may go up at below the inflation rate. It's one of the reasons that if you plan a build for say a house and you allow a 10% margin of error for materials costs, even over just 6-12 months you can go way above that if say the cost of fuel goes up or the cost of say a steel beam goes up (and IIRC steel has several times gone up in 6 months at multiples of what the inflation rate was*). IIRC it is currently cheaper to use actual proper wood than the likes of plywood for some projects at the moment because the cost of that has risen so much faster than the cost of some woods, and some particular cuts of wood went up massively faster than inflation because of things like the mills and shipping being affected energy prices.
Also they're likely going to aim to build it much stronger (extra cost) and with better resilience (extra cost), and likely to a very different design (extra cost) and do a lot of computer modelling to see how the design reacts under various conditions (extra cost, but cheaper than as has happened in the past, you build a bridge and find it's unsafe in certain weather conditions).

Even things like fairly simple seeming design changes can have a massive effect on the cost


*One of the main reasons every major multi year project seems to go "over budget" is because if they say have 3 months in planning disputes/court disputes over the route you can see the cost of materials having gone up before you've even started getting them on site, and that means you're now looking at inflation affecting everything more than allowed for, let alone the odd war disrupting the energy costs and shipping routes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom