That doesn’t look like a little repair, which is what I had assumed. That looks like the ship’s insurer is buying Baltimore a new bridge.

googles

en.wikipedia.org/…/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Balt…

The main span of 1,200 feet (366 m) was the third longest span of any continuous truss in the world.

Smooth.

The bridge, at an estimated cost of $110 million

Construction of the Outer Harbor Bridge began in 1972, several years behind schedule and $33 million overbudget.

So $143 million in 1972 dollars…

www.usinflationcalculator.com

$1.06 billion in 2024 dollars.

EDIT:

www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9697428

95k ton displacement.

imo.org/…/Convention-on-Limitation-of-Liability-f…

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC)

The Convention provides for a virtually unbreakable system of limiting liability.  Shipowners and salvors may limit their liability, except if “it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such a loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result”.

The limit of liability for property claims for ships not exceeding 2,000 gross tonnage is 1 million SDR.

* For larger ships, the following additional amounts are used in calculating the limitation amount: 

• For each ton from 2,001 to 30,000 tons, 400 SDR 

• For each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, 300 SDR

• For each ton in excess of 70,000, 200 SDR

So that’d be 29,200,000 SDR.

www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_sdrv.aspx

1.325610 US dollars per SDR.

So about a $39 million limit on marine liability for a ship of that size, or under 4% of the price of the bridge.

Maybe Baltimore taxpayers are gonna be buying Baltimore a new bridge.

EDIT2: I wonder how owners of larger ships managed to get lower per-ton liability limits than owners of smaller ships.

EDIT3: Oh, wait. Apparently the US isn’t party to that treaty. Sounds like the US uses law even more favorable to the shipowner.

iclg.com/practice-areas/…/usa

The United States is not a party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.  Instead, the United States continues to apply the Limitation of Liability Act (the Limitation Act), passed in 1851 to encourage investment in shipping.  Under this Act, vessel owners (including demise charterers) may limit liability to the value of the vessel and pending freight in certain circumstances where the loss occurred without the privity or knowledge of the owner.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of…

The Act was passed by Congress on March 3, 1851 to protect the maritime shipping industry; at the time, shipowners were subject to loss from events beyond their control such as storms and pirates, so the Act was designed to limit the shipowners’ liability to the value of the vessel. Without it, American shipping was “at a competitive disadvantage” compared to other maritime countries where similar limitations applied.[1]: 260 

Section 3 of the 1851 Act states “the liability of the owner or owners of any ship or vessel … shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner or owners respectively, in such ship or vessel, and her freight then pending”.

I guess if you’re gonna knock down a bridge with a container ship, the US is probably a good place to do it.

Those constructions rely on all parts being where they are, otherwise the whole thing collapses. You’d need a different kind of bridge for the single stretches to be independent.

It would say most construction projects rely on a boat not ramming into it

Just to illustrate the point, this is no "tap". A cargo ship like that hitting something is about the same momentum as 14 loaded Boeing 787s hitting something at 800 km/h, simultaneously.

As soon as the investigation is finished, they’ll get on removing the debris. That area has no shortage of transportation engineering companies. I’m sure people from the governor’s and mayor’s respective offices are already reaching out to line up inspections and eventual bids. Once the investigation is over, their top goal will be getting the port opened up.

Yeah DOT confirmed the port of Baltimore is closed to sea traffic, local truck traffic from port is still active so the closure won’t be felt immediately. But it will be significant the longer it’s closed. 9th largest port in the US.

Yes, and they won’t for the moment.

Yeah they won’t get by, in bound traffic will reroute to Norfolk, Philadelphia and NY until a plan is in place. I would guess they have the channel open in 2 weeks or less.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Baltimore

Currently, the port has major ro-ro (roll-on roll-off) facilities and bulk facilities, especially steel handling. The port handles around 700,000 vehicles annually. Most Mercedes-Benz cars that are imported into the U.S were handled here as well in 2004.

The Port handles one-fourth of the country’s coal exports.

Better to wait for more details to come out than to speculate wildly.

Wow, that was a wild shot of the collapse.

Here’s a quick take on the cause of the crash:
. Ship power cut off and the pilot panicked and threw engines into reverse (as seen by engine exhaust) . ‘Prop walk’ turned the ship starboard into the bridge support

Everything in camera collapsed, but the whole thing was 1.6 miles.

…wikipedia.org/…/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltim…

I wonder how quickly one can get a RORO ferry up and running? That bridge isn’t gonna be rebuilt any time soon.

Just looking at that map makes me crack up as someone from Ireland. Baltimore is a small town here on the south coast of Cork. Dundalk is up in Northern Ireland. Pasadena is a place in California.

I just think it’s funny when America has random place names taken from elsewhere.