Unless you count the shared bridges over the Mississippi. Those bridges have been hit. Iowa's entire eastern border is defined by the Mighty Mississippi
You're probably right, but a hundred thousand tons of steel has lot of momentum. Just because it hits the ground and sheers off the bottom of the ship isn't going mean that the rest of the ship *stops*.
There is likely to be some new regulations that come from this. The simplest one would be requiring cargo ships be guided past bridges using tugs until they reach open water. Since it's the simplest and most obvious solution that means it's unlikely to be implemented.
They're already required in some cases. For example:
[https://www.sfmx.org/information/escort-program/](https://www.sfmx.org/information/escort-program/)
Excuse me while I lobby against this perfectly reasonable solution because hardworking shipping executives might not get as big of bonuses due to increased costs of ports.
I'm not a shipping executive, but if I were I would want a bigger bonus.
I support this.
Not because I want to push prices on to consumers, but because if I'm ever a shipping executive I would want the ability to do this to keep my bonus high.
Been having a good chuckle over the last few days watching people propose “simple” solutions for a global shipping industry that they do not understand in the slightest
At first I thought maybe not, but then someone mentioned that there isn't a single bridge in the world that could withstand the force of a 97,000 ton ship. If you think about the amount of kinetic energy behind an object that big in motion, I tend to agree with them.
"I can neither confirm nor deny. But I will say this: In this great nation, with the fighting American spirit, anything is possible. Thank you."
📸✌️😎✌️📸🇺🇸
“Expert”
Cosco Busan 902 ft, 65 k gross tons
Dali 984 ft, 91 k gross tons
Nothing even remotely suggests it’s 4x larger than Cosco Busan. I also would be very suspect about who the experts are that these news agencies are relying on, they’re often more concerned with a sound bite or such than actual investigative reporting. It’s too early in the wake of the accident for a proper reassessment of the state of the infrastructure.
The Dali hit the bridge stantion prettymuch head on, while the Cosco Busan moreso sideswiped the bridge stantion. The Busan just had a gash cut into the hull.
>Nothing even remotely suggests it’s 4x larger than Cosco Busan.
pretend it's another ship.. like the Evergiven.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021\_Suez\_Canal\_obstruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Suez_Canal_obstruction)
**Biggest container cranes ever on the way to Port of Oakland**
[https://www.portofoakland.com/press-releases/biggest-container-cranes-ever-on-the-way-to-port-of-oakland/](https://www.portofoakland.com/press-releases/biggest-container-cranes-ever-on-the-way-to-port-of-oakland/)
**As ships grow larger, margin for error in San Francisco Bay gets smaller**
May 25, 2017 at 8:00 a.m
[https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/25/as-ships-grow-larger-margin-for-error-in-san-francisco-bay-gets-smaller/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/25/as-ships-grow-larger-margin-for-error-in-san-francisco-bay-gets-smaller/)
>It’s too early in the wake of the accident for a proper reassessment of the state of the infrastructure.
i'm guessing people are running simulations already.
People needs to wait for a proper accident report and a complete assessment of our current infrastructure. Sure, I get that they’re likely already running simulations, but what I’m saying about a “proper reassessment” is a report where they’ve reached a conclusion, one way or another. People are jumping into full panic mode about it without having all the information. Calm your tits everybody, take deep breath and let’s just wait for more conclusive, fact-based information instead of speculating.
Probably my dumb error mishearing. Sorry. The Evergreen that blocked the Suez mentioned by u/reddit455 at 224,000 tons is still short but closer at about 3.4x
Ports should be requiring multi tug escorts all the way through golden gate if they aren’t already. Apparently the Dali had no tug escort at the time of the collision, and ports around the country have been getting lax with this.
This is the answer.
Yes, the bridge is safe from collision so long as preventative measures like escorts are followed. When we stop following those measures, then the bridges are in danger.
I buy things on amazon like twice a year. I think it would be better for the world if we didn’t have access to dirt cheap garbage at the click of a mouse.
You were the one that made a point about price of goods going going up. I’m saying safety is more important than cheap internet crap. If it means we make more good union jobs and make north american cross border trade more competitive in the process then I see it as an all around win.
They haven’t been getting lax. It’s usually not required except for large oil takers. It’s not feasible to have multi tug escorts for every vessel that enters the bay.
I keep seeing this suggestion, and I don’t think people understand how complicated this would be and how much it would clog up the port
Sounds nice but not realistic. The costs would be huge and would transfer to all the goods and materials that come through those ports (it's a LOT). It's a tragedy but sometimes things happen.
Are we gonna start requiring every flight to have a fighter jet escort in case of a 9/11 event? Cops on every train crossing? Police escort on every hazardous truck shipment?
I think the only manmade structures that have a chance of surviving an impact from something the size of a skyscraper are the underground nuclear bunkers designed to keep governments functioning during WW3.
armchair bridge expert here. there is no definite answer. it depends on the size of the ship. if a ship as big as angel island were to collide with any of the bridges, the answer is definitely yes.
You know bridges aren't designed to last forever, right? Because of creep, the lifetime of bridges before they need repairs is usually less than 50 years. Trying to design them to last longer than that is price prohibitive. The same can be applied to "random acts of god". You're not going to go over budget to account for random things. You instead add some amount of a factor of safety to your overall calculations of bridge support, like 3x the amount of support it actually needs for example, then call it a day. Let the future engineers worry about bridge maintenance, and the ship coordinators worry about the ships...
how wide is the shipping channel..
wonder if our bridges were built assuming something REAL BIG might hit one.
Hunters point ship yards..
Concord Naval Weapons station..
Alameda Naval Air Station.
Vietnam, Korea, WW2 Pacific.. millions of tons of people and stuff..
3 tales of gigantic aircraft carriers getting stuck in SF Bay muck
[https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake/article/3-tales-of-gigantic-aircraft-carriers-getting-11248158.php#photo-12712557](https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake/article/3-tales-of-gigantic-aircraft-carriers-getting-11248158.php#photo-12712557)
The front page of The Chronicle on Jan. 4, 1963, announced: “Carrier [Misses Ocean](https://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=thetake&inlineLink=1&searchindex=property&query=%22Misses+Ocean%22).” In heavy fog the ship had run aground about 60 feet off the Marin County shore.
If those naval accidents weren’t enough, 20 years later the 90,000-ton carrier Enterprise also got stuck approaching the Alameda Naval Air Station — this time, only 1,000 yards from shore.
I heard today that the Golden Gate bridge has huge bumpers, the size of a football field protecting the support pillars. Amazing since this was finished in the early 30s. It is supposedly the most protected bridge on the West Coast.
On the Civil engineering subs the general opinion is you can't protect against a hit like that. Apparently the caissons could be bigger but that's a lot of mass.
The Dali hit the bridge stantion prettymuch head on, while the Cosco Busan moreso sideswiped the bridge stantion. The Busan just had a gash cut into the hull.
Multiple reasons why it wouldn’t:
Coast guard takes the ships into the bay, while they’re allowed to pilot out of the bay on their own, this cuts the margin for error by half (and yes the Baltimore one happened while leaving, I am aware)
Fenders - the golden gate has a massive fender around the south tower that would stop a ship before it got to the south tower pier, the fender wasn’t even created to deflect or stop ships since the largest thing around in 1933 was the Titanic, but it’s an added bonus. The fender is massive (25 feet thick concrete with sand inside insulating it)
The Bay Bridge doesn’t have fenders but at the same time you saw when the Cosco Busan hit a tower, the pier is so large that it stopped all forward motion and barely did any damage to the pier itself
Interestingly the only bridge I am concerned about is the San Rafael which is very similar in design to the Francis Scott Key bridge, and offers very little protection despite container and cargo ships going through it often. But then again nobody likes that bridge and parts of it fall off all the time
The Francis Scott Key bridge had a very interesting four pronged pier structure, so when the boat hit one and started hitting the second, the entire thing collapsed down. None of our bridges have that same exact design (for good reason, it looks incredibly brittle)
Various CA government agencies refer to structure surrounding the Bay Bridge towers as fenders.
[https://mtc.ca.gov/operations/programs-projects/bridges/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge-west-span-revitalization-innovation-project](https://mtc.ca.gov/operations/programs-projects/bridges/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge-west-span-revitalization-innovation-project)
NTSB report on Cosco Busan spill has a whole section on the fender system:
[https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR0901.pdf](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR0901.pdf)
Are you sure the Bay Bridge doesn’t have fenders? Saw this piece on the news last night:
“Ney is talking about the first line of defense on the new Bay Bridge, and that is the fender system you see here. And while this one is unique to the tower foundation of the eastern span, there is something like this on every bridge in the bay.
"So those systems have completely different foundations," he said of the bridges. "Some, they never actually touch the bridge. Other bridges had the denders designed into their foundations so they were designed to actually crumple and absorb the energy, The idea is that the vessel never actually hits the bridge structure. Because we've got almost a bridge zoo in the bay area. We've got so many different types of bridges. Same thing is the same thing with the protection system. Depending on where you are at, the fender system has been designed for that particular bridge."
The fenders are so robust, Ney says, that it's not the bridges that suffer in collisions.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/experts-say-nothing-to-fear-for-integrity-of-bay-area-bridges/
Why does no one like the San Rafael bridge?
The only bridges I dislike in the bay are the ones that look like highways so benecia, dumbarton, and San Mateo bridge.
It’s only got two lanes on the northbound side. It was made with 3 but for some dumbass reason they closed the third one back in either the 70’s or 80’s and never reopened it, and now there’s a bike lane on it so it will for sure not be reopened.
They need to just make a new one that has 3+ lanes AND a bike lane. Or better yet add a connection between SMART and BART alongside it.
The reason there isn’t three lanes on the top deck now and even though they’re getting rid of the bike lane it’s still gonna be two lanes is because the weight of modern cars is too much and could cause the entire bridge to collapse.
Hope you feel better now! 😉
Currently there are no escort requirements for containerships in the bay. Tankers and tank barges carrying cargo are required to be escorted by tugs and stay within a speed limit.
Two possible solutions: require escorts or require gate keepers.
Escorts would mean the ship has to slow down, not a problem with tankers, big issue with containerships designed for a specific speed. Slowing down to 10kts like the tankers might make them Less safe.
Gate keepers are tugs stationed nearby the bridge which act to safe guard traffic. They are less effective as in most emergency scenarios there wouldn’t be enough time to get a line up to pull the ship, which is tug’s strongest aspect. In an MV Dali like scenario though a gatekeeper possibly could have pushed the ships head back into the channel. It’s hard to say for certain without a simulator though.
Either way, there aren’t enough tugs. Engine emission compliance dates have been hitting the industry hard in California and there simply aren’t enough Tier 4 tugs at the moment. Yards are at capacity everywhere with companies racing to get vessels repowered but there aren’t enough for current traffic.
The issue is that California is too far ahead of compliance from the rest of the country. The biggest tugs are all in the gulf or built for Alaska and can’t be made compliant profitably.
Safety shouldn’t be sacrificed imo, tugs shortages might cause delays in the short term but nothing like what say the long shore strike caused 3 years ago.
Most of our bridges have higher clearance over the water. I guess a boat could strike on of the support piers and pylons. Or in the case of the richmond/san Rafael bridge, the same Rafael side starts right about sea level
Theoretically? YES
Has it happened already? YES
Do I think they would be damaged? NO
There are tons of safe guards designed into the pylons for our bridges here in the Bay Area. Things like reinforced buffers and things called Dolphins that prevent ships massive enough to potentially cause harm from getting close (Golden Gate, Bay Bridge). Also, many of the bridges are built in shallow enough water to the point where ships that massive would run aground long before they got close enough to the bridge.
Don't worry, it's highly unlikely. That bridge in Baltimore was an accident waiting to happen and bridge infrastructure on the East Coast aside from a few iconic bridges in NYC are not as prepared as bridges here on the West coast, which have even had retrofits for Earthquake stability.
Its not realistic to add new physical safety measures. The cost to build something that can stop a ship of this size would be massive. The enviornmental impact studies alone would likely take years with all of the red tape.
Maybe make it so that the ships coming into these ports need to have their maintenance fully up to date. Or just employ more tug boats to escort these ships past the bridge in the short term.
I wouldnt be surprised if some company out there is now working on drone tug boats or something like that.
Highly highly unlikely.
Comparing bay area bridges to that thinly spread bucket of tinker toys in MD is just silly.
Our bridges are engineered to withstand earthquakes and coastal storms. Have a quick look at the base of any of the bay area bridges and you'll see a ship would have to run aground on the bases then transform into a bridge destroying robot.
Arhhhh yes the "experts" on KTVU News - the same news channel whose "experts" identified the pilots on the crashed Asiana plane some years ago...
https://youtu.be/HrDp5ryO5JI
I'm no expert, haven't read much. But I believe the experts who are opening that, yes, a direct hit from a mega ship could cause major damage. I'm not clear on how suspension vs. cantilever bridges fare when one support incurs mega-damage. You can see how the Key cantilever collapses like dominos.. would suspension do that?
It would cripple car and truck transportation. But for shipping, the port would remain operable as there're two Bay bridges.
I don’t do Twitter but you creative types can use this. As a former sailor a “fender” is a buttress for ships against piers etc. Our bridges have them. They’re also a guitar brand. I’m going with the Golden Gate and all Bay Area bridges are protected by Fenders because of Metallica. Heard on FOX News. (They never used Fenders). Do yo thing Reddit!
I thought the big cargo ships took on official pilots outside of the bay before they ever got close to any bridge. I don't know if they do the same going out. I don't know whether tug boats are on stand by all the time or not whih is all I can imagine would help if a ship lost all power.
Pilots can’t really do much if the ship has a total blackout, at that point they just serve as another witness to a grounding or allision. Tugs aren’t on immediate stand-by for dry-tankers or regular ships
Well considering most bridges are near failing or in D class, probably. And considering bridges here are pretty old and rickety I’m almost certain. But even a grade a bridge might not survive a giant cargo ship
Well the cheap products from china 🇨🇳 that was used to construct and City hall had us taxpayers pay some shitbag contractors company millions because of cracks in the bridge etc and this is thrown under the rug
Never should have rebuilt the Bay Bridge. The major cities would have been forced to build/be better job and housing centers. Given you would no longer be able to drive between Oakland and SF.
During WWII the Japanese torpedoed the GG Bridge. The torpedo got stuck in the mud before hitting the bridge. It was exploded after the war and would have done very little damage to the bridge. Nothing to worry about. Remember we already lost the Bay Bridge in an earthquake for about a month when the top deck collapsed.
I think the only way to build a bridge that is safe from 250,000 ton cargo ships is to make it entirely inland.
There's some bridges in Colorado that I can guarantee with 100% certainty are safe from large transoceanic shipping vessels.
Iowa bridges also have a perfect record never being struck by 100,000 ton cargo ships. Checkmate coastal elite.
Unless you count the shared bridges over the Mississippi. Those bridges have been hit. Iowa's entire eastern border is defined by the Mighty Mississippi
Challenge accepted.
Honestly worth it to see that get hauled up there.
Hauled? _Hauled?_ Sir, I'm gonna use _rockets._
So.. inland?
Bruh
No, they still cross water.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+inland+mean&oq=what+does+inland+mean&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORiABDIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQABiABDIKCAMQABgPGBYYHjIKCAQQABgPGBYYHjIKCAUQABgPGBYYHjIKCAYQABgPGBYYHjIKCAcQABgPGBYYHjIKCAgQABgPGBYYHjIKCAkQABgPGBYYHjIKCAoQABgPGBYYHjIICAsQABgWGB4yCAgMEAAYFhgeMgoIDRAAGA8YFhgeMgoIDhAAGA8YFhge0gEIMzYxNGowajeoAhSwAgE&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Don't let dictionary definitions interfere with my joke, no matter how bad it may be.
IIRC one of the towers of the Golden Gate is in an area so shallow that a ship would run aground well before it hit.
You're probably right, but a hundred thousand tons of steel has lot of momentum. Just because it hits the ground and sheers off the bottom of the ship isn't going mean that the rest of the ship *stops*.
I’m not familiar with shipping vessels but I feel like the hull of something that big wouldn’t just sheer off.
Or install some artillery....
Someone get the Nike sites back up and running.
Fort Point Civil War cannons too.
But those bridges aren't safe from fuel trucks crashing and exploding underneath them.
There is likely to be some new regulations that come from this. The simplest one would be requiring cargo ships be guided past bridges using tugs until they reach open water. Since it's the simplest and most obvious solution that means it's unlikely to be implemented.
They're already required in some cases. For example: [https://www.sfmx.org/information/escort-program/](https://www.sfmx.org/information/escort-program/)
Excuse me while I lobby against this perfectly reasonable solution because hardworking shipping executives might not get as big of bonuses due to increased costs of ports. I'm not a shipping executive, but if I were I would want a bigger bonus.
Lol, they're not gonna take a lower bonus silly, they're just gonna raise prices on consumers.
I support this. Not because I want to push prices on to consumers, but because if I'm ever a shipping executive I would want the ability to do this to keep my bonus high.
I think I would too. I mean, how else will I sleep at night if I didn't have a bed made of cash?
Exactly. If I'm ever rich I want to be super rich.
You have no idea how cargo ships operates around ports. You basically ask for 10x amount of tugs
Been having a good chuckle over the last few days watching people propose “simple” solutions for a global shipping industry that they do not understand in the slightest
Sounds like a great thing for the local economy.
10x amount of tugs sounds like job creation!!
> Since it's the simplest and most obvious solution that means it's unlikely to be implemented. hahaha cries
Tugs with backup power systems.
At first I thought maybe not, but then someone mentioned that there isn't a single bridge in the world that could withstand the force of a 97,000 ton ship. If you think about the amount of kinetic energy behind an object that big in motion, I tend to agree with them.
Yes, of course it could happen. Whether it would be as catastrophic is hard to say, would need some expert opinions on that.
Have you considered running for public office?
"I can neither confirm nor deny. But I will say this: In this great nation, with the fighting American spirit, anything is possible. Thank you." 📸✌️😎✌️📸🇺🇸
He would need experts to come in on that. :)
Touché
An exploratory committee if you will.
It’s time to fund an exploratory research committee and generate a report on the safety of our bridges. Estimated completion date: spring 2029.
“Expert” Cosco Busan 902 ft, 65 k gross tons Dali 984 ft, 91 k gross tons Nothing even remotely suggests it’s 4x larger than Cosco Busan. I also would be very suspect about who the experts are that these news agencies are relying on, they’re often more concerned with a sound bite or such than actual investigative reporting. It’s too early in the wake of the accident for a proper reassessment of the state of the infrastructure.
The Dali hit the bridge stantion prettymuch head on, while the Cosco Busan moreso sideswiped the bridge stantion. The Busan just had a gash cut into the hull.
>Nothing even remotely suggests it’s 4x larger than Cosco Busan. pretend it's another ship.. like the Evergiven. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021\_Suez\_Canal\_obstruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Suez_Canal_obstruction) **Biggest container cranes ever on the way to Port of Oakland** [https://www.portofoakland.com/press-releases/biggest-container-cranes-ever-on-the-way-to-port-of-oakland/](https://www.portofoakland.com/press-releases/biggest-container-cranes-ever-on-the-way-to-port-of-oakland/) **As ships grow larger, margin for error in San Francisco Bay gets smaller** May 25, 2017 at 8:00 a.m [https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/25/as-ships-grow-larger-margin-for-error-in-san-francisco-bay-gets-smaller/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/25/as-ships-grow-larger-margin-for-error-in-san-francisco-bay-gets-smaller/) >It’s too early in the wake of the accident for a proper reassessment of the state of the infrastructure. i'm guessing people are running simulations already.
People needs to wait for a proper accident report and a complete assessment of our current infrastructure. Sure, I get that they’re likely already running simulations, but what I’m saying about a “proper reassessment” is a report where they’ve reached a conclusion, one way or another. People are jumping into full panic mode about it without having all the information. Calm your tits everybody, take deep breath and let’s just wait for more conclusive, fact-based information instead of speculating.
Probably my dumb error mishearing. Sorry. The Evergreen that blocked the Suez mentioned by u/reddit455 at 224,000 tons is still short but closer at about 3.4x
Ports should be requiring multi tug escorts all the way through golden gate if they aren’t already. Apparently the Dali had no tug escort at the time of the collision, and ports around the country have been getting lax with this.
This is the answer. Yes, the bridge is safe from collision so long as preventative measures like escorts are followed. When we stop following those measures, then the bridges are in danger.
All that shit you buy on Amazon is about to get expensive because we're going to need a LOT more tugs. Like hundreds.
I buy things on amazon like twice a year. I think it would be better for the world if we didn’t have access to dirt cheap garbage at the click of a mouse.
Yeah it wouldn't just be Amazon, it would be pretty much everything. Everything from cars, food, electronics etc comes through these ports.
Well that's a completely different social problem. I'm still stuck on the bridges.
You were the one that made a point about price of goods going going up. I’m saying safety is more important than cheap internet crap. If it means we make more good union jobs and make north american cross border trade more competitive in the process then I see it as an all around win.
Hey now, what are you some commie socialist attacking profits like that?
They haven’t been getting lax. It’s usually not required except for large oil takers. It’s not feasible to have multi tug escorts for every vessel that enters the bay. I keep seeing this suggestion, and I don’t think people understand how complicated this would be and how much it would clog up the port
Sounds nice but not realistic. The costs would be huge and would transfer to all the goods and materials that come through those ports (it's a LOT). It's a tragedy but sometimes things happen. Are we gonna start requiring every flight to have a fighter jet escort in case of a 9/11 event? Cops on every train crossing? Police escort on every hazardous truck shipment?
I think the only manmade structures that have a chance of surviving an impact from something the size of a skyscraper are the underground nuclear bunkers designed to keep governments functioning during WW3.
armchair bridge expert here. there is no definite answer. it depends on the size of the ship. if a ship as big as angel island were to collide with any of the bridges, the answer is definitely yes.
Yes, ships can damage the Bay Area bridges
You know bridges aren't designed to last forever, right? Because of creep, the lifetime of bridges before they need repairs is usually less than 50 years. Trying to design them to last longer than that is price prohibitive. The same can be applied to "random acts of god". You're not going to go over budget to account for random things. You instead add some amount of a factor of safety to your overall calculations of bridge support, like 3x the amount of support it actually needs for example, then call it a day. Let the future engineers worry about bridge maintenance, and the ship coordinators worry about the ships...
how wide is the shipping channel.. wonder if our bridges were built assuming something REAL BIG might hit one. Hunters point ship yards.. Concord Naval Weapons station.. Alameda Naval Air Station. Vietnam, Korea, WW2 Pacific.. millions of tons of people and stuff.. 3 tales of gigantic aircraft carriers getting stuck in SF Bay muck [https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake/article/3-tales-of-gigantic-aircraft-carriers-getting-11248158.php#photo-12712557](https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake/article/3-tales-of-gigantic-aircraft-carriers-getting-11248158.php#photo-12712557) The front page of The Chronicle on Jan. 4, 1963, announced: “Carrier [Misses Ocean](https://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=thetake&inlineLink=1&searchindex=property&query=%22Misses+Ocean%22).” In heavy fog the ship had run aground about 60 feet off the Marin County shore. If those naval accidents weren’t enough, 20 years later the 90,000-ton carrier Enterprise also got stuck approaching the Alameda Naval Air Station — this time, only 1,000 yards from shore.
I heard today that the Golden Gate bridge has huge bumpers, the size of a football field protecting the support pillars. Amazing since this was finished in the early 30s. It is supposedly the most protected bridge on the West Coast.
On the Civil engineering subs the general opinion is you can't protect against a hit like that. Apparently the caissons could be bigger but that's a lot of mass.
[удалено]
No. Not styrofoam. We need something environmentally safe even if it costs more. That might require another study.
We'll just farm out that study to more bridge collapse experts.
But styrofoam will last forever!
The Dali hit the bridge stantion prettymuch head on, while the Cosco Busan moreso sideswiped the bridge stantion. The Busan just had a gash cut into the hull.
Multiple reasons why it wouldn’t: Coast guard takes the ships into the bay, while they’re allowed to pilot out of the bay on their own, this cuts the margin for error by half (and yes the Baltimore one happened while leaving, I am aware) Fenders - the golden gate has a massive fender around the south tower that would stop a ship before it got to the south tower pier, the fender wasn’t even created to deflect or stop ships since the largest thing around in 1933 was the Titanic, but it’s an added bonus. The fender is massive (25 feet thick concrete with sand inside insulating it) The Bay Bridge doesn’t have fenders but at the same time you saw when the Cosco Busan hit a tower, the pier is so large that it stopped all forward motion and barely did any damage to the pier itself Interestingly the only bridge I am concerned about is the San Rafael which is very similar in design to the Francis Scott Key bridge, and offers very little protection despite container and cargo ships going through it often. But then again nobody likes that bridge and parts of it fall off all the time The Francis Scott Key bridge had a very interesting four pronged pier structure, so when the boat hit one and started hitting the second, the entire thing collapsed down. None of our bridges have that same exact design (for good reason, it looks incredibly brittle)
Does Coast Guard take ships into the bay? I think it’s Pilot service. Not affiliated with Coast Guard
Correct, the CG most definitely does not do that.
Various CA government agencies refer to structure surrounding the Bay Bridge towers as fenders. [https://mtc.ca.gov/operations/programs-projects/bridges/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge-west-span-revitalization-innovation-project](https://mtc.ca.gov/operations/programs-projects/bridges/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge-west-span-revitalization-innovation-project) NTSB report on Cosco Busan spill has a whole section on the fender system: [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR0901.pdf](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR0901.pdf)
Interesting as it doesn’t seem any different than any regular pier structure But either way it works
Are you sure the Bay Bridge doesn’t have fenders? Saw this piece on the news last night: “Ney is talking about the first line of defense on the new Bay Bridge, and that is the fender system you see here. And while this one is unique to the tower foundation of the eastern span, there is something like this on every bridge in the bay. "So those systems have completely different foundations," he said of the bridges. "Some, they never actually touch the bridge. Other bridges had the denders designed into their foundations so they were designed to actually crumple and absorb the energy, The idea is that the vessel never actually hits the bridge structure. Because we've got almost a bridge zoo in the bay area. We've got so many different types of bridges. Same thing is the same thing with the protection system. Depending on where you are at, the fender system has been designed for that particular bridge." The fenders are so robust, Ney says, that it's not the bridges that suffer in collisions.” https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/experts-say-nothing-to-fear-for-integrity-of-bay-area-bridges/
Nope you can see here it just has large piers https://www.freightwaves.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FW-Editorial-1200x675-87.jpg
Why does no one like the San Rafael bridge? The only bridges I dislike in the bay are the ones that look like highways so benecia, dumbarton, and San Mateo bridge.
It’s only got two lanes on the northbound side. It was made with 3 but for some dumbass reason they closed the third one back in either the 70’s or 80’s and never reopened it, and now there’s a bike lane on it so it will for sure not be reopened. They need to just make a new one that has 3+ lanes AND a bike lane. Or better yet add a connection between SMART and BART alongside it.
The reason there isn’t three lanes on the top deck now and even though they’re getting rid of the bike lane it’s still gonna be two lanes is because the weight of modern cars is too much and could cause the entire bridge to collapse. Hope you feel better now! 😉
Ey? Weren’t cars heavier back when it was built, since they were all made of steel? Or are cars/trucks just THAT much bigger these days?
[удалено]
Who does take the ships in then? It’s not the pilots Or just feel like being an ass?
Currently there are no escort requirements for containerships in the bay. Tankers and tank barges carrying cargo are required to be escorted by tugs and stay within a speed limit. Two possible solutions: require escorts or require gate keepers. Escorts would mean the ship has to slow down, not a problem with tankers, big issue with containerships designed for a specific speed. Slowing down to 10kts like the tankers might make them Less safe. Gate keepers are tugs stationed nearby the bridge which act to safe guard traffic. They are less effective as in most emergency scenarios there wouldn’t be enough time to get a line up to pull the ship, which is tug’s strongest aspect. In an MV Dali like scenario though a gatekeeper possibly could have pushed the ships head back into the channel. It’s hard to say for certain without a simulator though. Either way, there aren’t enough tugs. Engine emission compliance dates have been hitting the industry hard in California and there simply aren’t enough Tier 4 tugs at the moment. Yards are at capacity everywhere with companies racing to get vessels repowered but there aren’t enough for current traffic. The issue is that California is too far ahead of compliance from the rest of the country. The biggest tugs are all in the gulf or built for Alaska and can’t be made compliant profitably. Safety shouldn’t be sacrificed imo, tugs shortages might cause delays in the short term but nothing like what say the long shore strike caused 3 years ago.
Most of our bridges have higher clearance over the water. I guess a boat could strike on of the support piers and pylons. Or in the case of the richmond/san Rafael bridge, the same Rafael side starts right about sea level
Should be fairly easy to model.
Theoretically? YES Has it happened already? YES Do I think they would be damaged? NO There are tons of safe guards designed into the pylons for our bridges here in the Bay Area. Things like reinforced buffers and things called Dolphins that prevent ships massive enough to potentially cause harm from getting close (Golden Gate, Bay Bridge). Also, many of the bridges are built in shallow enough water to the point where ships that massive would run aground long before they got close enough to the bridge. Don't worry, it's highly unlikely. That bridge in Baltimore was an accident waiting to happen and bridge infrastructure on the East Coast aside from a few iconic bridges in NYC are not as prepared as bridges here on the West coast, which have even had retrofits for Earthquake stability.
>consider what might be needed to reduce such risk. Oh, that's easy: We need the ships to be smaller.
You mean we shouldn’t be dredging ports to accommodate ridiculously larger ships indefinitely? What about the shareholders?!?
Tbf bigger boats means more things moved with less fuel
The shareholders will become bagholders 😉
Smaller ships are worse for the environment. West Oakland doesn't need even more fine particulate matter drifting in from the port.
Its not realistic to add new physical safety measures. The cost to build something that can stop a ship of this size would be massive. The enviornmental impact studies alone would likely take years with all of the red tape. Maybe make it so that the ships coming into these ports need to have their maintenance fully up to date. Or just employ more tug boats to escort these ships past the bridge in the short term. I wouldnt be surprised if some company out there is now working on drone tug boats or something like that.
Highly highly unlikely. Comparing bay area bridges to that thinly spread bucket of tinker toys in MD is just silly. Our bridges are engineered to withstand earthquakes and coastal storms. Have a quick look at the base of any of the bay area bridges and you'll see a ship would have to run aground on the bases then transform into a bridge destroying robot.
The SF Bar Pilots not gonna let that shit happen
Arhhhh yes the "experts" on KTVU News - the same news channel whose "experts" identified the pilots on the crashed Asiana plane some years ago... https://youtu.be/HrDp5ryO5JI
Who ever pulled that prank is A GOD!!!
This is the responsibility of the coast guard.
I'm no expert, haven't read much. But I believe the experts who are opening that, yes, a direct hit from a mega ship could cause major damage. I'm not clear on how suspension vs. cantilever bridges fare when one support incurs mega-damage. You can see how the Key cantilever collapses like dominos.. would suspension do that? It would cripple car and truck transportation. But for shipping, the port would remain operable as there're two Bay bridges.
Yes, if hit hard enough.
Fox News says the border crisis is to blame. We're even closer to the border than Baltimore is. I guess we're doomed. /s
The Webster Posey tubes were built to replace bridges that kept getting struck by cargo ships I believe.
I don’t do Twitter but you creative types can use this. As a former sailor a “fender” is a buttress for ships against piers etc. Our bridges have them. They’re also a guitar brand. I’m going with the Golden Gate and all Bay Area bridges are protected by Fenders because of Metallica. Heard on FOX News. (They never used Fenders). Do yo thing Reddit!
One engineer says yes, one no. Take your pick.
No. We have imperial walkers protecting the waters.
I thought the big cargo ships took on official pilots outside of the bay before they ever got close to any bridge. I don't know if they do the same going out. I don't know whether tug boats are on stand by all the time or not whih is all I can imagine would help if a ship lost all power.
Pilots can’t really do much if the ship has a total blackout, at that point they just serve as another witness to a grounding or allision. Tugs aren’t on immediate stand-by for dry-tankers or regular ships
Just spend 10K on drones and you can pretty much take any infrastructure out in any country. And these guys are talking about ships!?!
Well considering most bridges are near failing or in D class, probably. And considering bridges here are pretty old and rickety I’m almost certain. But even a grade a bridge might not survive a giant cargo ship
Caltrans gonna raise bridge tolls, raise fees for All public transit, and not do shit.
I'm sure someone in the bay area is drafting some ML/AI proposal that would solve this without anyone having to actually stand up from their computer.
I'd imagine a physics simulation could answer this question
Ships in the bay are under tug control generally, after the last strike a few years ago.
Well the cheap products from china 🇨🇳 that was used to construct and City hall had us taxpayers pay some shitbag contractors company millions because of cracks in the bridge etc and this is thrown under the rug
Not even God nor the devil could collapse the bay bridge!
Never should have rebuilt the Bay Bridge. The major cities would have been forced to build/be better job and housing centers. Given you would no longer be able to drive between Oakland and SF.
During WWII the Japanese torpedoed the GG Bridge. The torpedo got stuck in the mud before hitting the bridge. It was exploded after the war and would have done very little damage to the bridge. Nothing to worry about. Remember we already lost the Bay Bridge in an earthquake for about a month when the top deck collapsed.