Is there a reason that prep-work needs to be done again? Genuinely don't know: presumably the formerly built bridge had engineer-approved plans where all the math and physics were worked out and validated.
I mean, aside from clearing the wrecked bridge so that you can build it in the same spot.
I'm no bridge engineer but if the collision caused enough stress across the entire structure to the point of causing fractures in underwater foundation blocks then I'd imagine they might have to dismantle them as well.
Lead time on orders. Old bridge was 4-5 thousand tons of steel that has to be scheduled into some (already busy) foundries, and you can't even start putting it together until you've got a lot of the pieces staged and ready.
But frankly I doubt they'll rebuild it "as it was". They might as well throw on a couple extra lanes and use a newer style. They could do something a little more grandiose, like the Rio-Antirio bridge.
Regardless of styling, they should definitely, definitely add on more protection for the bridge pylons, this time, particularly around that shipping lane…
You obviously know more about this than I, but that was one of the things I heard discussed, even early on, to prevent incidents like this happening again, so surely…
Frankly, I'm amazed that they weren't already, in this case.
I live in a city where a bridge collapsed (partly, different structure) in the mid-70s, in almost the exact same way. Death toll was a bit higher, too, because different time of day, less alternative options for the same route (at that point), and because a few cars drove off the gap.
As a result, now, and ever since, pilot tugs are always required, when a ship of that size enters or leaves the port, or any other large-scale industrial port, pretty much anywhere in the country, and whenever a boat of that size goes through said rebuilt bridge, the entire thing is closed to transit while it crosses, until it's clear, just to be safe...
So... I guess I just assumed that was the standard everywhere, but evidently not...
To be fair though, we had both Granville (one of the worst bridge collapses in a Western country in the last 60 years) and Westgate happen in Aus, too, which were huge losses of life, comparatively, so I guess we learned the hard way from those, umm, accidents...
Is there a reason that prep-work needs to be done again? Genuinely don't know: presumably the formerly built bridge had engineer-approved plans where all the math and physics were worked out and validated.
I mean, aside from clearing the wrecked bridge so that you can build it in the same spot.
I'm no bridge engineer but if the collision caused enough stress across the entire structure to the point of causing fractures in underwater foundation blocks then I'd imagine they might have to dismantle them as well.
Lead time on orders. Old bridge was 4-5 thousand tons of steel that has to be scheduled into some (already busy) foundries, and you can't even start putting it together until you've got a lot of the pieces staged and ready.
But frankly I doubt they'll rebuild it "as it was". They might as well throw on a couple extra lanes and use a newer style. They could do something a little more grandiose, like the Rio-Antirio bridge.
Sadly, those foundries have be relocated to (checks notes) China.
They'll also rename it to the George Floyd bridge or some shit because Francis Scott Key owned slaves.
Regardless of styling, they should definitely, definitely add on more protection for the bridge pylons, this time, particularly around that shipping lane…
You obviously know more about this than I, but that was one of the things I heard discussed, even early on, to prevent incidents like this happening again, so surely…
Nah.
I think it's more likely that the NTSB will come up with more aggressive rules on when pilot tugs are required.
I love how we all know in current year the idea of not using a bunch of diversity hires is just out of the question.
Frankly, I'm amazed that they weren't already, in this case.
I live in a city where a bridge collapsed (partly, different structure) in the mid-70s, in almost the exact same way. Death toll was a bit higher, too, because different time of day, less alternative options for the same route (at that point), and because a few cars drove off the gap.
As a result, now, and ever since, pilot tugs are always required, when a ship of that size enters or leaves the port, or any other large-scale industrial port, pretty much anywhere in the country, and whenever a boat of that size goes through said rebuilt bridge, the entire thing is closed to transit while it crosses, until it's clear, just to be safe...
So... I guess I just assumed that was the standard everywhere, but evidently not...
To be fair though, we had both Granville (one of the worst bridge collapses in a Western country in the last 60 years) and Westgate happen in Aus, too, which were huge losses of life, comparatively, so I guess we learned the hard way from those, umm, accidents...