The bridge was sound. The ship lost power. Not an infrastructure problem but a tragic accident. It would have been much worse five or six hours earlier when commuter traffic was on it.

1977 – date bridge opened. It is a long bridge and I suspect its design accounts for its vulnerability and collapse after one of its support pillars was destroyed.

I doubt it was designed with huge container ships (and their numbers) in mind.

What does the bridge/barge have to do with ginger cookies?

From the link I posted, " 100,000 tons of mass has a lot of momentum," and so the bridge support did not stand a chance against that much force. Boats are difficult to stop because they do not have friction (to speak of) in the water, and with a loss of power, a cargo ship would be wandering out aimlessly on its own.

I saw a ferry crash into the dock on Catalina once (It happened right in front of me), and while the boat appeared to be going very slowly, it did enough damage to put the ferry out of commission for a while.

What does the bridge/barge have to do with ginger cookies?

Not being able to have ginger cookies is completely unimportant, especially compared to loss of life. As far as a hiccup, it's a pretty minor hiccup in the scheme of life to lose access to ginger cookies

If the bridge could have remained standing after losing that particular support, then that support wouldn't have been necessary or placed where it was. Neither bridge supports nor bridges are designed to survive an impact from such weighty vessels.

Large ships entering or leaving a commercial harbor are always required to have a pilot. This is true worldwide. Sometimes the piloted approach is long, if the intended berth is up a narrow river or small inlet. Pilots do not, repeat do not, assume command of or responsibility for the ships they're on. The master or captain is always in command and, I believe, is always present on the bridge alongside the pilot. The pilot is there to provide speed and directional path guidance and instructions consistent with local conditions and requirements.

Thanks. I guess I am totally out of the loop as far as ginger cookies are concerned. And I don't see Floral's comment, which may be a good thing.

I am following the tragedy about the bridge and barge. So very sad.

I'm going to stand up for floral_uk. I think no offense - NONE- should be taken from her tone or her words. To me, it was along the lines of this - this space is often occupied with useless topics of no importance and of no consequence. Can y'all turn your attention for a moment to a matter that's quite important and of grave consequence?

I actually agree with Elmer again! Whoa!

Must be the coming eclipse or something!

This how the Kitchen Table forum is billed.

“This is a place where you can chat about topics not covered by the other forums. Like, why is one leg of the table always shorter than the other three?“

It’s your choice to participate.

I think floral’s post is fine.

Annie, the eclipse is a non-event, consider it progress instead. Let's put our heads together, you're on a good streak.

Shall we start with how bogus chiropractors are? Or ditto for other phony "health practitioners" and purveyors of health mumbo jumbo?

"And I don't see Floral's comment, which may be a good thing."

I'm sorry that you've entirely missed the meaning of my heading. Maybe it's that transatlantic comprehension gap again, although it seems plenty of people have grasped my intention. They've explained it perfectly. There was nothing remotely offensive about it so not understanding my meaning isn't a 'good thing'. I was contrasting the recent long thread about favourite foodstuffs missing from shops with a genuine catastrophe. Basically reminding us all to be thankful for what we have. Hence the reference to perspective. It wasn't sarcasm nor was it disgusting and you haven't been mercifully saved from anything bad by failing to understand the inference.

The Panama Canal is the only place in the world where the Captain relinquishes control of the vessel to the local pilot.

I was on a cruise ship leaving Nawiliwili and the harbour pilot fell into the water when transferring back to his boat. He drowned. The ship had to wait in open water while the ship’s crew went in their boats and retrieved all the safety devices that had been tossed into the water by passengers watching the tragedy unfold.

You'll note my comment referred only to harbors, no mention of canals. The thread is about the harbor exit crash, during which it can be assumed the captain was on the bridge but whether or not, was in command of and responsible for the ship.

Are the ginger cookies a red herring or a macguffin?

I had skipped this thread when I saw ginger cookies. I did not see the Baltimore Bridge when I glanced so I assumed it was something about ginger cookies, which I dislike. I posted another thread about this, and floral responded she had made this thread already.

I immediately understood Floral's message and found nothing offensive. I had written it out plainly but the same sentiment. To me it's a clear example of perspective.

Tragic event, that no one could have imagined 2 minutes before it happened, and it has big consequences.

Floral, please accept my apology and thanks for the explanation! I must be having some senior moments today! Now, hiding my head and will do better at reading comprehension .

Basically reminding us all to be thankful for what we have. Hence the reference to perspective. It wasn't sarcasm nor was it disgusting and you haven't been mercifully saved from anything bad by failing to understand the inference.

You could have created this thread with no mention of any frivolous thread. The fact that you chose to speaks volumes.

The Baltimore Bridge reference in the subject line was added after the fact. I thought it was a cheap shot, but chose not to comment. In fact I’ve just decided to delete the rest of what i wrote in this post.

Maybe, but the fact that floral did put it into proper perspective with the ginger cookie reference lends far more credulity than if she had only reported on the accident.

Nothing about her comments was the slightest bit 'disgusting'!

The Baltimore Bridge reference in the subject line was added after the fact. I thought it was a cheap shot, but chose not to comment. In fact I’ve just decided to delete the rest of what i wrote in this post.

That makes it even worse.

I'm sorry some readers failed to comprehend my post. But most people did. I added the explanatory subheading to clarify it for those who didn't understand the meaning.

I heard this news on the radio very early this morning, still the middle of the night in Boston, and was very shocked by it. I then went on line and saw the video. The "holy he ll"comment was the horrified human reaction heard from the person taking the video. I was surprised nobody on KT had mentioned it so decided to post about it. I mentioned perspective in order to contrast this genuine tragedy with some of the frothy topics we usually enjoy here. If anyone finds genuine shock at a disaster and a thought on reminding ourselves of what really matters in life 'a cheap shot', then I'm afraid that's not something I can do anything about.

But, Elmer, there have been other bridge collapses where one section of a bridge falls down but the rest remains standing. So I can't help but feel that, especially in the light of this appalling event, building a bridge as an interdependent continuous structure is a design flaw.

And sadly, Lars, there are reports that several cars and a tractor trailer are under the debris, while there were several workers fixing potholes on the bridge at the time, and six are still missing.

I mentioned perspective in order to contrast this genuine tragedy with some of the frothy topics we usually enjoy here.

I've read a number of threads on other forums regarding this tragedy and not a single one felt the need to contrast the tragedy with fluff.

I clearly understood floral's meaning as well.

Some folks seem to make a sport of finding offense where none was intended.

When I read it, I thought of the earlier reference in a thread about ginger cookies disappearing from store shelves, and thinking about the huge contrast in issues that we hear about during daily life, I went on to consider the tragedy with sadness for possible hurt to people and regret about the damage and resulting disruption.

ole joyful

Carol, I for one didn’t set out to find a hidden offense, it hit me right in the face. While I certainly understand putting things in perspective, to me it would have been more effective and less aggressive had it shown some humility and self-reflection. Perhaps rather than call out someone else’s thread that she didn’t so much as participate on, maybe something like this:

”Just yesterday I was on another thread griping about recipes using imperial measures, then a tragedy like this strikes and highlights the triviality of our daily grievances.”

As it was, it struck me as a knock on the small talk that is this forum. I'll accept at face value that it wasn't the intent, just hopefully explaining how I read it and why. This IS generally a light forum, by design, and anyone who fancies themselves above it all is free to go elsewhere.

such a terrible tragedy.

i often cross a lift bridge over the illinois river. this bridge has had piers hit numerous times by barges. when this happens, they will close it for repairs for 3 or 4 days but i always have to wonder how much damage was done that they don't see. this bridge is 95 years old. there have been several accidents over the years where someone was not paying attention, didn't see the barrier that comes down when the lift goes up, and drove off into the river.

Geez. I read salonva’s post and her pointer or floral’s pointer to floral’s post. That was before many here were awake. Both were very clear.

No one needs to appologize, but a few might want to reset their noggins and flush out the high dudgeon and earwax — maybe sleep on top of the bed.

Hours have passed since the catastrophe. The bridge collapsed in what seemed like seconds. I feel heartsick about the loss of lives and that lovely bridge. All lost in an instant.

I am sad and for some reason I am just utterly pissed that an apparent power failure on a massive ship could create so much loss so suddenly.

How do we get made ”whole” from this? (And the shock to our collective psyches figures in there as well.) I feel ill.

Edit— rephrased a sentence

" I've read a number of threads on other forums regarding this tragedy "

Authoritative, intellectual forums like Facebook?

" Elmer, there have been other bridge collapses where one section of a bridge falls down but the rest remains standing. So I can't help but feel that, especially in the light of this appalling event, building a bridge as an interdependent continuous structure is a design flaw. "

I doubt it was a continuous structure but rather one with interconnected sections.

Remember that the load on a bridge is vertical (from weight), not horizontal. The contact from the ship was a massive horizontal blow from an amount of mass that most certainly exceeded the normal weight load on the entire bridge from one end to the other. All hitting at one spot.

I'm not a structural engineer but I suspect the interconnects are for stability for flexiing under normal load conditions, not from a horizontal blow like what happened. I

I'd be willing to guess that no bridge anywhere spanning such a water channel is engineered to survive an impact of that magnitude.

“Authoritative, intellectual forums like Facebook?”

What’s it matter who’s reading and saying what, where, in these conversations? None of these conversations are consequential. Just sharing dismay, the latest news reports and chatter, trying to make intelligent sounding speculation which itself doesnt matter if right or wrong unless someone’s keeping score. Is there even something here to influence our vote, our fantasy voice? One bridge falls due to a tragic accident, meanwhile well into the hindreds of bridges have fallen elsewhere, on purpose, due to a madman with global asperations who half this country doesn’t seem to care to stand up to. Who wants to talk about perspective?

(Not me, I’m retiring early tonight, right after I check head to butt for excess ear wax and lodged sticks. GN!!!)

Well said.

Just want to point out that the OP's title isn't necessarily directed outward toward others, that's a subjective interpretation. IOW, how one perceives it is a choice.

Of course there will be an inquiry into this accident. I hope there will be recommendations made that will prevent this happening again.

This is what has been done to the Halifax Harbour Bridges:

“A 1979 report recommended the construction of rock islands around the piers of the bridges to further protect the legs of the towers in the event that a ship lost its ability to navigate. That work was completed in 1983.”

I’m not sure how feasible this would be for the Baltimore Bridge.

Today's ships are considerably larger and have more mass than their predecessors 40 years ago. Having the greatest protection for head on impacts would be sufficient if those were the only possible risks. This boat lost steering and veered to the side so that a partially side impact appears to have happened.

I've been over the Key Bridge though not recently and I don't remember it well. I wonder if those who are responsible today for the Halifax bridges think precautions taken 40 years ago remain adequate?

Another approach that could be taken with immediate effect to provide more safety at harbors where passage under a bridge with mid-channel supports is required would be to have each passing ship accompanied by two tugboats, one on each side of the bow, until the potential obstacles are passed. You heard it here first.

“The Halifax Bridge Commission said it has been watching the incident closely and if there is anything that can be learned in terms of safety, it will include it in its plans moving forward.

The bridge commission said risk assessments are done regularly and there are a variety of protection systems built in.”

According to a news report today, they say they are constantly learning from accidents like this and learn. It is an ongoing process.

Safety recommendations will come from the Baltimore Bridge inquiry. All places with this type of set up should pay attention.

I hope you're not suggesting that this statement from Halifax intimates its approach is unique or different in some way from what's likely done everywhere else where there are bridge supports in harbor channels where large ships pass.

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m saying that all overseers of harbour channels will learn something from this accident. Hopefully, other disasters like this can be prevented.

Plane crashes result in inquiries. Train derailments and crashes result in inquiries. Recommendations for safer operations come out of them. . Halifax, along with others, all over the world, will learn something.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10384962/vancouver-bridge-safety-baltimore-ship-impact/

The Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver is in the midst of designing protective barriers. It’s an ongoing process.

“The provincial government is in the midst of designing barriers specifically to protect the bridges’ pier structures.

Engineers are looking at a rock berm for the south tower of the Lions Gate Bridge that would deflect an approaching ship to run aground before striking the support.

“If a vessel were to get off course and start navigating towards the structure, the rock berm would help slow down and prevent any sort of vessel impact or very much lessen the impact of it, which would allow the column and the pier of the bridge to stay intact,” said Janelle Staite, deputy director for the South Coast with the Ministry of Transportation.”

There’s also a part in that article about using tugs for safety. Some are opposed to that idea.

Interesting to learn that there was a ship/bridge collision in Canada in 1979. That partially explains the PR concern and the action taken in Halifax at around the same time.

The TV reporter didn't seem to understand the subject matter. He mentioned that the space under the one bridge was really "wider than it looks", at 120 meters or "almost three times" the width of ships that normally pass underneath, with 45 meter beams. The problem is, that makes the wiggle room on each side less than the width of the ship itself, hardly "plenty of room".

Most TV reporters don’t understand the subject matter.

The point is that accidents of all kinds happen all the time, everywhere. Those people that have the authority to make changes will learn and act I hope. Apparently, this ship did have two tugboats with it but they were released too soon.

This was a terrible accident.

Just read that ship is comparable in size to an aircraft carrier and there was no chance the bridge could've survived the impact.

Whenever I hear of a bridge collapse, I’m reminded of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge disaster.

Here is a short video that explains that bridge collapse and gives some information about suspension bridges and why they are used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXTSnZgrfxM

Elmer, have a look at the Tasman Bridge disaster. A ship took out three pylons and a section they were directly supporting fell but most of the bridge stayed up.

A bridge spanning over such busy and major trading port can be built better than it was. When they re-build the bridge, I want to see a system of fender, like concrete pillar ring, surrounding each supporting pylon to absorb the vessel impact.

I bet if they rebuild there, they will plan on something different. Accomidate the larger ships. That ship didn't have much wiggle room. The bridge opened in 1977- the average container ship was around 3,500 containers at the time. The ship that crashed was a 10,000 container ship. Some of the largest ships now can carry 24,000 containers.

Thanks colleen. I found an interesting ABC piece recalling the Hobart incident and comparing the two bridges. I noticed at first sight that the Tasman bridge was of a very different construction type, it's concrete almost like a freeway connector bridge. The commentary says that each individual section is fully supported and rests independently from adjacent sections.

It's a reminder that perhaps no one in this business should have needed - this bridge collision isn't unprecedented. Hopefully this spotlight on the apparent lack of ongoing assessments of needed preventive measures for bridges worldwide may change things.

Oops, forgot the link. ABC=Australian Broadcasting Company

Baltimore's Key Bridge collapse sparks memories of Hobart's own disaster after ship struck Tasman Bridge - ABC News

I heard that the Maersk Dali struck the pylon with “2 Million pounds of force — 100,000 tons” and its speed was 9 mph.

palisades, I think those concrete and steel reinforcemet ”islands” would not have helped protect the Key Bridge. The cargo ship was massive and with an enormous amount of momentum.

colleen, I saw a video of the Tasman Bridge disaster.

edit

Will we find out that this tragedy could have been prevented? Probably.

Much of US infrastructure is obsolete. How big a tax increase will we tolerate to make the necessary repairs and provide ongoing upkeep?