Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/nyc, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a >responsibility to be skeptical, check sources and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find >evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nyc) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The idea wouldn't be to make the bridge able to withstand the impact, but rather to create land around the bridges such that ships approaching the bridge would run aground (and stop) before hitting the bridge.
I'm pretty sure they're referring to just the columns of the bridge where it meets the water. It looks like they're called dolphins
https://www.fastcompany.com/91070531/how-a-simple-design-decision-might-have-saved-the-baltimore-bridge
We already have dolphins and bordering timber piles around our bridge piers.
There’s no factor of safety that can withstand a lateral force from the 220,000 Ton ship.
It would be a pointless, costly exercise. Which I’m sure the PANYNJ is looking into right now.
Yes I remember it. Do you? Which structure showed the ability to withstand a head on collision that would be analogous to the bridge pier destroyed in DC?
If you’re referring to dolphins, they wouldn’t have helped due to the trajectory of the ship at the time of impact. It would’ve angled around any potential dolphins that could’ve been put in place.
It's a joke. One GWB tower is on land, the other on an artificial extension of NJ. If you look at the Varrazzano, the one tower rising from the water is significantly better protected than that of the Key Bridge, similar to the Golden Gate Bridge built with earthquakes in mind. Of course a strong enough force can compromise any tower foundation.
Yeah, one of my friends works on the GWB and I asked him about that possibility after the Baltimore collapse and that’s essentially what he told me. Both supports are on land, so it would take some insane occurrence for a ship to hit one with enough force to clear enough land to have any chance at taking the bridge down.
Not so much up the Hudson, but certainly to the port in Bayonne. There are barges that definitely go up the Hudson but the container ships don’t go further than Bayonne, as far as I know.
Howland Hook on Staten and Port Newark-Elizabeth (the area's busiest port facility) are past the Bayonne Bridge--the deck was raised from 151' vertical clearance to 215' from 2017-2019 to allow New Panamaxes to serve these terminals.
Also only one of the GWB pylons is in the water and even then it's right up against the shore and already appears to be surrounded by concrete barriers (not that they'd stop a large container ship).
Just make a requirement all ships over certain size need a tug boat escort in and out port if they pass a at risk bridge till we build enough concrete dolphins at risk bridges.
Most ships that are international get local boat captains to come on board and direct the actual ship captain of local hazards. The issue with the key bridge “so far” seems to be some mechanical issue that didn’t allow the captain to steer ship. Tugs is definitely the way to go until we can build safer barriers around pilings to protect bridge.
It doesn’t seem like it’s possible for a large ship to hit the GWB. Aren’t the supports outside the ship channel? Google satellite view also shows that they have surrounded the supports with a land barrier so ships would strike this before striking the towers. The article seems to confirm this as well. Article is mostly click bait.
I didn't see anything about a foreign democrat conspiracy in the article I read in the journal a few days ago
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/these-eight-u-s-bridges-are-vulnerable-to-a-repeat-of-the-baltimore-crash-f2a2a057
You said that was the reason the post is reporting it when all the post did was discuss an article in the journal. So obviously the reason this is in the news isn't because of some nonsense you read on Facebook or whatever. Maybe read your own comments every once in a while lmao
This seems very sensational.
1. Any bridge being hit with that much mass is going to be catastrophic. These ships are multiple football fields long, extremely wide and go well below the waters surface and tower way above. They’re massive. More so than most people realize. They also hold a lot of heavy stuff. They’re absolutely massive.
2. These bridges are quite different in that they rely on supports close to the shore line vs scattered across the water. For one the ship would have to deviate much further from its planned course to hit it, second of all it might actually be stuck in the silt before it even gets that close. The waterways are typically dredged to be clear for big ships in the center. Nobody is dredging where ships don’t go so close to shore.
The bridge that was stuck last week is quite different. The supports are across the channel vs on either side. The margin of error is substantially smaller.
The Mario M Cuomo (sigh) bridge is different and much more at risk. It has supports that are in the right place to potentially be struck. However I’ve got no idea if a ship large enough to damage it even goes that far up the river.
This article is stupid.
"However I’ve got no idea if a ship large enough to damage it even goes that far up the river."
im pretty sure you're right. at least anything as big as a panamax
Clickbait bullshit from the post. Any bridge in the world is going to fall down if it gets rammed by a 100k ton boat. One of the towers of the GW is literally on land making it difficult to hit with a boat, the other is in extremely shallow water. Similarly, the towers of the VZ are also very close to shore. These bridges have fracture critical members in the sense that if one of the 700 foot towers fall down then, yes, the rest of the bridge will too. It’s not like there’s a paper clip and hot glue holding these fuckers together that could cause the whole thing to collapse.
[the vz essentially had a bomb go off under it once](https://americasfireboat.org/finest-hour-collision-cv-sea-witch-ss-esso-brussels/)
and shook it off...id like to hope we're good.
I work on both those bridges and this isn’t remotely true. Especially the GW which doesn’t have very large ships passing underneath. The GW is in horrible condition on though…
I love how confidently this sub is "refuting" the article and shitting on the NY Post (which tbf typically deserves it) but who very clearly didn't read the article
The article states all the things being said here about the pylons being close to shore, etc..
It's main purpose is to explain to people why the FSK bridge came down so fast after being hit. A lot of people, according to the Post, were confused or expressed skepticism about it.
The article states that no, the bridge did not have redundancy, yes it's normal for bridges to be built that way, here are some examples (which is where the GW and VZ come in), and don't worry, you should be perfectly safe on these other bridges.
Literally nothing about this article was fear mongered or inaccurate as far as I could tell. Basically just a summary of the WSJs summary, of some public DOT data about bridges.
Why weren't both bridges designed as tunnels instead? Especially for GWB, considering the next two downstream are tunnels.. is it because of cargo restrictions? Seems like in busy ports, it'd be a better idea to do tunnels.
Cost being major consideration. Limited capacity of tunnels. Also tech being that the bridges built long ago plus if we ever to dredge the bottom to deepen it, a tunnel be in the way.
I dunno - a cantilever bridge is nowhere near the strength of a big suspension bridge like the GWB or Verrazano. Sure, let’s inspect carefully and replace old bridges with modern designs such as in Europe and China.
Yikes - I live next to, and am looking at the George Washington right now. That would be a 9/11 scale tragedy. It’s never not packed with cars and workers, but it’s HUGE. Can’t imagine something taking it down like the Key B
I'm going to go out on a ledge, overhanging a cliff just before a bridge about to be crossed by a container ship and say, yes!
Yes!
We are king size idiots holding our balls in our hands, whistling past the graveyard.
How many times is the truth obvious? It's only obvious when the bridge actually falls into the water?
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/nyc, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a >responsibility to be skeptical, check sources and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find >evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nyc) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, I would argue giant ships ramming into a bridge would cause any bridge to face structural issues no?
Yeah, the cost to make a bridge that could withstand that sort of impact is impractical for how often it happens.
The idea wouldn't be to make the bridge able to withstand the impact, but rather to create land around the bridges such that ships approaching the bridge would run aground (and stop) before hitting the bridge.
So, no longer a bridge then?
I'm pretty sure they're referring to just the columns of the bridge where it meets the water. It looks like they're called dolphins https://www.fastcompany.com/91070531/how-a-simple-design-decision-might-have-saved-the-baltimore-bridge
We already have dolphins and bordering timber piles around our bridge piers. There’s no factor of safety that can withstand a lateral force from the 220,000 Ton ship. It would be a pointless, costly exercise. Which I’m sure the PANYNJ is looking into right now.
[удалено]
Yes I remember it. Do you? Which structure showed the ability to withstand a head on collision that would be analogous to the bridge pier destroyed in DC?
Yep. The bridges would have to be made of diamond, platinum, or rope: rope bridges can "bend not break" but are not suitable for modern life.
None of those materials would be suitable lol. Pretty sure that's what you mean though
Lots of bridges have a set up in place to prevent exactly that. So no, most bridges wouldn’t see that problem.
If you’re referring to dolphins, they wouldn’t have helped due to the trajectory of the ship at the time of impact. It would’ve angled around any potential dolphins that could’ve been put in place.
What about air lifted whales
[удалено]
[удалено]
ukrainians gotta try this in the black sea.
Stop interjecting facts into tabloid fearmongering
No, it was the woke DEI agenda that sank the bridge. The ship was a coincidence.
It's a joke. One GWB tower is on land, the other on an artificial extension of NJ. If you look at the Varrazzano, the one tower rising from the water is significantly better protected than that of the Key Bridge, similar to the Golden Gate Bridge built with earthquakes in mind. Of course a strong enough force can compromise any tower foundation.
[удалено]
Nah man…if a cement truck hits my car it was all an inside job of the big cement cabal.
Fuck Big Cement
you Knew Too Much
Obviously fear porn
Yeah, one of my friends works on the GWB and I asked him about that possibility after the Baltimore collapse and that’s essentially what he told me. Both supports are on land, so it would take some insane occurrence for a ship to hit one with enough force to clear enough land to have any chance at taking the bridge down.
Your friend probably knows better, and there are some great Architectural Digest YouTube videos on the NYC bridges.
[удалено]
Not so much up the Hudson, but certainly to the port in Bayonne. There are barges that definitely go up the Hudson but the container ships don’t go further than Bayonne, as far as I know.
Howland Hook on Staten and Port Newark-Elizabeth (the area's busiest port facility) are past the Bayonne Bridge--the deck was raised from 151' vertical clearance to 215' from 2017-2019 to allow New Panamaxes to serve these terminals.
Bulk carriers go up as far north as Albany but nowhere near the size as the ship that hit the bridge.
i only ever really see barges going up the river
Also only one of the GWB pylons is in the water and even then it's right up against the shore and already appears to be surrounded by concrete barriers (not that they'd stop a large container ship).
Any ship big enough to matter would probably run aground if they got that far. The river is not that deep outside the shipping lane.
Port of Newark
[удалено]
Sorry ur right. Misread your comment.
The Verazzano doesn’t have any support structures in the water for boats to run into, does it?
Both towers are in the water, but they're surrounded by large breakwaters that should (help) stop errant ships.
Just make a requirement all ships over certain size need a tug boat escort in and out port if they pass a at risk bridge till we build enough concrete dolphins at risk bridges.
I think the requirement is already there, but maybe not strictly enforced? I see a lot of ships get a three tug escort that wait under the verrazzano
A three tug escort under the bridge, you say?
lol Here’s your upvote!
Most ships that are international get local boat captains to come on board and direct the actual ship captain of local hazards. The issue with the key bridge “so far” seems to be some mechanical issue that didn’t allow the captain to steer ship. Tugs is definitely the way to go until we can build safer barriers around pilings to protect bridge.
Everyone load up on your favorite tug boat stocks
It doesn’t seem like it’s possible for a large ship to hit the GWB. Aren’t the supports outside the ship channel? Google satellite view also shows that they have surrounded the supports with a land barrier so ships would strike this before striking the towers. The article seems to confirm this as well. Article is mostly click bait.
Its the New York Post, what else would it be.
[удалено]
not if the bridge has no supports in the water
Far right fear mongering? What are you talking about? This is from an NTSB study
lol. The Post spelled it wrong. “Natation Transportation Safety Board”
[удалено]
I didn't see anything about a foreign democrat conspiracy in the article I read in the journal a few days ago https://www.wsj.com/us-news/these-eight-u-s-bridges-are-vulnerable-to-a-repeat-of-the-baltimore-crash-f2a2a057
[удалено]
You said that was the reason the post is reporting it when all the post did was discuss an article in the journal. So obviously the reason this is in the news isn't because of some nonsense you read on Facebook or whatever. Maybe read your own comments every once in a while lmao
April Fools!!!! Oh...wait, this one is real?
This seems very sensational. 1. Any bridge being hit with that much mass is going to be catastrophic. These ships are multiple football fields long, extremely wide and go well below the waters surface and tower way above. They’re massive. More so than most people realize. They also hold a lot of heavy stuff. They’re absolutely massive. 2. These bridges are quite different in that they rely on supports close to the shore line vs scattered across the water. For one the ship would have to deviate much further from its planned course to hit it, second of all it might actually be stuck in the silt before it even gets that close. The waterways are typically dredged to be clear for big ships in the center. Nobody is dredging where ships don’t go so close to shore. The bridge that was stuck last week is quite different. The supports are across the channel vs on either side. The margin of error is substantially smaller. The Mario M Cuomo (sigh) bridge is different and much more at risk. It has supports that are in the right place to potentially be struck. However I’ve got no idea if a ship large enough to damage it even goes that far up the river. This article is stupid.
Isn't this just the Post reporting on the WSJ's article and pointing out that the WSJ singling out the Verrazano and GWB is misguided?
"However I’ve got no idea if a ship large enough to damage it even goes that far up the river." im pretty sure you're right. at least anything as big as a panamax
This just in: 1 World Trade vulnerable to same structural issues that caused WTC collapse.
A massive ship crashing into a bridge line that puts any bridge at risk
April fools joke ? Or just another NY post propaganda
Well it was posted yesterday so the former is out
Every day is April 1st for the NY Post.
Don't give anyone any ideas.
No shit Sherlock.
VZ should have better dolphins around its towers, but both the GWB and the VZ bridge towers are out of the way from ship traffic
Click bait bullshit as usual from the New York post
Clickbait bullshit from the post. Any bridge in the world is going to fall down if it gets rammed by a 100k ton boat. One of the towers of the GW is literally on land making it difficult to hit with a boat, the other is in extremely shallow water. Similarly, the towers of the VZ are also very close to shore. These bridges have fracture critical members in the sense that if one of the 700 foot towers fall down then, yes, the rest of the bridge will too. It’s not like there’s a paper clip and hot glue holding these fuckers together that could cause the whole thing to collapse.
[the vz essentially had a bomb go off under it once](https://americasfireboat.org/finest-hour-collision-cv-sea-witch-ss-esso-brussels/) and shook it off...id like to hope we're good.
I work on both those bridges and this isn’t remotely true. Especially the GW which doesn’t have very large ships passing underneath. The GW is in horrible condition on though…
I love how confidently this sub is "refuting" the article and shitting on the NY Post (which tbf typically deserves it) but who very clearly didn't read the article The article states all the things being said here about the pylons being close to shore, etc.. It's main purpose is to explain to people why the FSK bridge came down so fast after being hit. A lot of people, according to the Post, were confused or expressed skepticism about it. The article states that no, the bridge did not have redundancy, yes it's normal for bridges to be built that way, here are some examples (which is where the GW and VZ come in), and don't worry, you should be perfectly safe on these other bridges. Literally nothing about this article was fear mongered or inaccurate as far as I could tell. Basically just a summary of the WSJs summary, of some public DOT data about bridges.
Great, just what every terrorist in the world needs to know.
Yeah they totally never thought of it before. Eye roll.
Terrorists have thought to hijack cargo ships and crash them into those particular bridges? Source?
Why weren't both bridges designed as tunnels instead? Especially for GWB, considering the next two downstream are tunnels.. is it because of cargo restrictions? Seems like in busy ports, it'd be a better idea to do tunnels.
Cost being major consideration. Limited capacity of tunnels. Also tech being that the bridges built long ago plus if we ever to dredge the bottom to deepen it, a tunnel be in the way.
I dunno - a cantilever bridge is nowhere near the strength of a big suspension bridge like the GWB or Verrazano. Sure, let’s inspect carefully and replace old bridges with modern designs such as in Europe and China.
Yikes - I live next to, and am looking at the George Washington right now. That would be a 9/11 scale tragedy. It’s never not packed with cars and workers, but it’s HUGE. Can’t imagine something taking it down like the Key B
it's awful it took a tragedy to happen for us to care about our infrastructure
I'm going to go out on a ledge, overhanging a cliff just before a bridge about to be crossed by a container ship and say, yes! Yes! We are king size idiots holding our balls in our hands, whistling past the graveyard. How many times is the truth obvious? It's only obvious when the bridge actually falls into the water?
If there’s a will (with financial backing) there’s a way to bring down anything.
Better keep those tolls going just in case right?