They actually cleared that opening a lot faster than I thought they would. Does it say that they actually removed the collapsed part or just that ships were able to pass over it? I would think...
They actually cleared that opening a lot faster than I thought they would. Does it say that they actually removed the collapsed part or just that ships were able to pass over it? I would think they would have to remove it for liability reasons.
It's a bit unclear from the submitted article, which is a bit sparse on details, but most others I have found referred to it as a "temporary channel" through the wreckage, which will eventually be...
It's a bit unclear from the submitted article, which is a bit sparse on details, but most others I have found referred to it as a "temporary channel" through the wreckage, which will eventually be closed again so work on that section can continue. E.g. This AP article has the most details I can find:
The first cargo ship passed through a newly opened deep-water channel in Baltimore on Thursday after being stuck in the harbor since the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed four weeks ago, halting most maritime traffic through the city’s port.
The Balsa 94, a bulk carrier sailing under a Panama flag, passed through the new 35-foot channel headed for Saint John, Canada. Two more commercial ships followed later Thursday, including a vehicle carrier headed to Panama.
Five vessels that have been stranded for weeks are expected to finally leave Baltimore through the new, temporary channel. Other ships are scheduled to enter the port, which normally processes more cars and farm equipment than any other in the country.
On Thursday morning, the Balsa 94 moved through the channel guided by two tug boats, one in front and one behind. It glided slowly past the fallen bridge and grounded Dali, the massive container ship that caused the collapse when it slammed into one of the bridge’s support columns.
Pieces of the steel span are still blocking other parts of the port’s main channel, which has a controlling depth of 50 feet, enough to accommodate some of the largest cargo and cruise ships on the water.
The new channel will remain open until Monday or Tuesday and then close again until roughly May 10. During the closure, crews will work to remove steel spans from the deck of the Dali and refloat the ship, which will then be guided back into the port, officials said earlier this week.
The port’s main channel is set to reopen next month after the Dali has been removed from the collapse site. That will allow for a normal flow of traffic to resume through the port.
But for now, the 35-foot depth is a substantial increase over the three other temporary channels established in recent weeks. It puts the cleanup effort slightly ahead of schedule, as officials previously said they hoped to open a channel of that depth by the end of April.
Even with commercial ships chugging past, crews continued the arduous process of clearing debris from the collapse site. On Thursday, they were using a crane apparatus to smash the fallen roadway into more manageable pieces that could be lifted from underwater with a giant claw.
Makes sense to me. The owners of the ships were likely putting a lot of pressure on the city to get their ships out ASAP. I could see them possibly even demanding compensation if it took too long...
Makes sense to me. The owners of the ships were likely putting a lot of pressure on the city to get their ships out ASAP. I could see them possibly even demanding compensation if it took too long (though not sure they'd have legal grounds to do so, but could still be a headache). With the ships gone, that's one less source of pressure to rush or expedite the cleanup process.
I'm curious about the ships scheduled to enter the port though. While getting ships out is a priority, I'd expect it to be closed entirely for liability reasons. Feels like having ships travel through the area of an active removal operation is a bit risky, especially since the crash was caused by power issues with the ship rather than direct negligence or a mistake by the crew or pilot with steering. I seriously doubt another ship will crash there due to technical problems instead of user error might happen again, but... Well, the possibility is fresh in my mind.
They actually cleared that opening a lot faster than I thought they would. Does it say that they actually removed the collapsed part or just that ships were able to pass over it? I would think they would have to remove it for liability reasons.
It's a bit unclear from the submitted article, which is a bit sparse on details, but most others I have found referred to it as a "temporary channel" through the wreckage, which will eventually be closed again so work on that section can continue. E.g. This AP article has the most details I can find:
Makes sense to me. The owners of the ships were likely putting a lot of pressure on the city to get their ships out ASAP. I could see them possibly even demanding compensation if it took too long (though not sure they'd have legal grounds to do so, but could still be a headache). With the ships gone, that's one less source of pressure to rush or expedite the cleanup process.
I'm curious about the ships scheduled to enter the port though. While getting ships out is a priority, I'd expect it to be closed entirely for liability reasons. Feels like having ships travel through the area of an active removal operation is a bit risky, especially since the crash was caused by power issues with the ship rather than direct negligence or a mistake by the crew or pilot with steering. I seriously doubt another ship will crash there due to technical problems instead of user error might happen again, but... Well, the possibility is fresh in my mind.