Comments by "TheEvertw" (@TheEvertw) on "Who Pays For The Baltimore Bridge Collapse?" video.

@christopherg2347 The Evergiven first ran into the shallows in front of that bank some 40 meters out. That was what saved the vessel, by the way. The force applied on the ship gradually increased. A sheer wall would have severely damaged the ship.
4
EXACTLY! The American public wanting short-term gain financed by neglecting existing infrastructure is what caused this. And there is another bridge that is insufficiently protected 20 miles downstream.
2
"To govern is to plan ahead". Ships this size have been visiting Baltimore for a decade or more. But no-one took responsibility to have the bridge upgraded or replaced by a tunnel. Alternatively, you have to wonder at the insanity which placed a bloody container terminal right next to downtown Baltimore, 160 miles from the coast? In such a confined space? Where I live, our largest container terminal was built on an artificial island right on the coast. No need for these behemoths to come near our bridges. Build some prime highway, railway and inland waterway to it and hey presto, a terminal that can service a continent. I am, of course, talking about the Maasvlakte terminal, part of Rotterdam harbor.
1
@Broadpaw_Fox Sadly, that buffer zone doesn't redirect the ship. In fact, it attracts the ship, due to the low pressure between the buffer and the ship when it moves closely past it (the "Bank Effect"). It needs sufficient distance from the pylon to allow a ship to slowly grind to a halt.
1
You know who is to blame for this? The American Public. Because of their refusal to pay sufficient taxes for the upkeep of their infrastructure, and voting for anyone who promises short-term gains, financed by neglecting infrastructure. Those bridge pylons should have been reinforced as part of building the container terminal. Same for the pylons of the bridge 20 miles downstream, which is yet to experience its Murphy Moment. How should they have been reinforced? Artificial / concrete islands 50 meters upstream and downstream of them, for stopping any ship on a allision course.
1
"Should the bridge have been able to survive that impact?" Answer: YES. There was a 100% chance that it would be hit by a large ship at some time during its existence. If there are no bridges strong enough to survive that impact, build a tunnel instead.
1
@troybaxter Excuses, excuses! If no bridge can be built to safely span the harbour, dig a tunnel instead. That is what they do in my country. Either build a bridge with a single span so it has no pillars that can be knocked out from under it, or build the road on a dike with a single span bridge in the middle for ships to pass through, or build a tunnel, or a combination of a dike and a tunnel. The best way to survive an allision is to prevent them by design. OR, even better, don't build a bloody container terminal expecting to service sea-going vessels 150 (!) miles inland! We have built ours, the biggest in Europe, on an artificial island right on the coast. Big ships have to navigate zero bridges to get there. It sees MANY times the traffic this Baltimore midget-terminal gets, loaded with goods for a whole continent.
1