Posted on 03/26/2024 8:59:16 PM PDT by jfd1776
"Di Leo: The Cheap Mercedes and the Beautiful Bridge"
I am told that there is a saying in the used car business: “Nothing is more expensive than a cheap Mercedes.”
That’s not to say that it’s not possible to get a good price on a used Mercedes. It probably is.
But the buyer must remember that people who buy new luxury cars are people who can afford the repairs on them. And even though that used car may be cheaper than a new car, once it’s in your possession, everything else that goes wrong, from brakes to HVAC, from shocks to transmissions, is going to cost you just as much as it would’ve cost the guy who could afford a new Mercedes.
In other words, no matter what you purchase, no matter how good a deal it may be, you must think long-term about the costs of upkeep and the long-term risks associated with it. If you can’t afford the sorts of things that might happen to it during the course of your ownership, then you really can’t afford the product in the first place.
Consider earthquake zones. People get in the habit of building to certain standards when properties lie on a fault line. You’re not just building a foundation, walls, and ceiling to handle the everyday; you are building to withstand the possibility of an earthquake, because you know it’s more than just a possibility there; it’s almost a certainty.
If you can’t handle that risk, you build somewhere else.
Sometimes, the government messes with the market, and changes these calculations. People build in flood zones, and then the government, unwisely but “generously,” sometimes rebuilds, even though the homeowners knew it was a flood zone when they built there in the first place.
The generous expenditure of other taxpayers’ money, in such cases, warps the market, warps people’s judgment, and ultimately causes unwise and costly choices.
Such practices should be discouraged. A responsible government should never reward bad choices.
The port of Baltimore suffered a multi-billion-dollar accident at midnight, as March 25 became March 26, when a containership, the Maersk-leased Dali, crashed into one of the supports of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, sending the entire structure into immediate collapse.
It is too soon to assess blame. As we go to press, experts are studying the wreckage, the videos, and the communications that preceded the destruction. Was it terrorism or just a terrible accident? Possibilities range from mechanical failure or onboard sabotage to a distant computer hack.
But no matter what the cause was, we now know certain things for sure:
• This bridge cost $110 million to build, 50 years ago. It will cost at least 1 billion to replace today, most likely much more than that.
• The world survived without this bridge until 1977. While we have spent 47 years getting used to having it there, we will have to spend at least the next several years living without a bridge there.
• As soon as architects and politicians started turning on their laptops, the next morning, people began to plan for the design, funding, and construction of a replacement bridge.
• And very few people will ask the question that needs to be asked:
“Should it really be rebuilt?”
Every bridge has a purpose. For thousands of years, bridges have been built to carry pedestrians, bicyclists, cars and trucks, or trains. As those crossing the bridges have changed, so too have the risks.
The Francis Scott Key Bridge was built to shorten the driving time from one side of the port to the other, so that people would no longer have to drive around the port. Well, for at least the next few years, people will have to get used to driving around it again.
And the proper public policy question must be asked: Is it worth the risk, now that we know what that risk is?
Sometimes, such questions are answered in the context of mixed funding sources. Maybe it wouldn’t be worth $1 billion to the drivers who cross the bridge; maybe it wouldn’t be worth $1 billion to the city of Baltimore; maybe it wouldn’t be worth $1 billion to the state of Maryland.
But what if the city and state split the cost with the port authority and the federal government? What if some complex deals were set up where a tollway might cover another quarter of the cost?
When such conversations are held, suddenly, all the risk is put to the side. Suddenly the big picture is forgotten, and it becomes a big shell game. Share the cost among enough different parties, preferably parties who either won’t be able to vote on it at all or will be given the impression that they are coming out ahead, by all the other funding sources sharing the cost with them.
That always works, with highways, stadiums, recreation centers, and more.
But what’s to say that this won’t happen again? Now that we know the risk, we must ask that question.
If we rebuild a bridge in front of a huge seaport, with several massive ships – container ships, brake bulk vessels, cruise ships, RO-RO vessels – crossing back and forth under the bridge every day, who’s to say that another ship, five years from now, won’t crash into it again? And then another, four years after that?
We don’t build an enormous bridge encircling the port of Los Angeles that ships must travel under, back-and-forth, every hour. The risk of a collision is simply too great with that kind of traffic. Why do we do it in Baltimore?
The responsible question for Baltimore must be this: not how to fund the bridge, not how to design it, but does it really make sense at all, considering the possibility that such a collision could happen again?
Government never asks these questions. Government always believes that the next thing must be at least as good as the thing it replaces – preferably bigger, preferably fancier, preferably more expensive.
It is time for American governments at every level to stop thinking like that.
The public treasury has been bankrupt for generations. We are over 100 trillion in debt at the national level alone when you count unfunded mandates; most big cities and states are in proportionately similar shape.
Massive public building projects – such as bridges and stadiums – are in many ways that same “cheap Mercedes” of legend: a project that you might be able to put together the funding to buy in the first place, but you can’t possibly afford to keep, once something goes wrong.
How often have we seen a city or state bankrupt its taxpayers to build a stadium, only to see the team move across the country ten years later? How often have we seen a massive convention center built, only to find the big shows switching to other venues for reasons out of their control, leaving an empty, taxpayer-funded white elephant in their midst?
Baltimore needs to look at its future and accept the fact that it probably cannot safely enjoy both a billion-dollar bridge and a busy seaport with vessel traffic running under it every few hours. We now know the risk is too great.
Baltimore is a great seaport in some ways – the best in the nation for RO-RO vessels and heavy bulk shipping. Perhaps the 695 bridge is just a luxury that a state in debt with a busy seaport cannot afford.
Think how highly the establishment would rise in our collective esteem, if they stood up to do the responsible thing, and said, for once, “We are going to put the economic health of the country first; we are going to do without this bridge from now on.”
Considering the herds of hogs, termites and leeches who normally populate America’s many bureaucracies, wouldn’t that be a breath of fresh air?
Copyright 2024 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based trade compliance trainer and transportation manager, writer, and actor. Once a County Chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party in the 1990s, after serving as president of the Ethnic American Council in the 1980s, he has been writing regularly for Illinois Review since 2009. His book on vote fraud, “The Tales of Little Pavel,” and his three-volume political satires of the Biden-Harris regime, “Evening Soup with Basement Joe,” are available in eBook or paperback, only on Amazon.
We haven’t had that happen here yet FWICS. No need to give them any ideas.
Oh, logic and reason, again./sarc
Wait...What?🤔
Sure, sure, sure... It’s a “shovel ready job” that will “build back better” A 100% democrat slush fund that will last for decades.
Nimitz Class aircraft carrier, for comparison.
Displacement 100,020 long tons (112,020 short tons)[1][2]
Length
Overall: 1,092 feet (332.8 m)
Waterline: 1,040 feet (317.0 m)
Beam
Overall: 252 ft (76.8 m)
Waterline: 134 ft (40.8 m)
Draft
Maximum navigational: 37 feet (11.3 m)
Limit: 41 feet (12.5 m)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz
There are already tunnel routes nearby. The bridge is mainly to allow trucks carrying hazardous materials to pass through. Hazmat in a tunnel is a no-no.
After 9-11, I understand that there were recommendations for bumper barriers to protect the bridge but the installation of them.was deemed too expensive. There are other Atlantic Coast cities like Norfolk, New York, and Jacksonville, that have bridges over harbor entrances. How secure are those bridges from accidents or sabotage?
Yes, but what if your tunnel tragically collapses, trapping all those bureaucrats inside???
Yes, but what if your tunnel tragically collapses, trapping all those bureaucrats inside???
The benefits of a bridge that is used by 30,000+ vehicles every day are enormous. If the danger of ships striking the bridge is so severe that decisions about the bridge itself must be considered, then a more likely scenario for the residents of the Baltimore area would be to close or move the PORT instead.
This great scene from the movie "Margin Call" illustrates the benefits of a bridge perfectly:
Mercedes “think” remained glued to the notion, “Some engine leaks are to be expected.”
Some others think otherwise, and some of them devoted years of trials . . . working out the kinks, per vehicle.
.
Supposedly there had been talk years ago of building a ring-road or business by-pass for I95, but nothing ever came of it. So the highway that people will have to use now is already overcrowded and not in great shape.
I think it makes a lot of sense not to rebuild the bridge, but they’ve got to get working on creating an alternative.
I don’t live in Baltimore and haven’t been there for years, btw, so whatever comments I make are just from having read about the situation and I may be completely off base.
Forget the 360s, the 370 were much better. You could dump DOS and run OS MVT w/ TSO and HASP. The only problem was the big ones, 155s through 185s, required 3.5 inch chilled water lines for CPU cooling. Remember: Check, reset, load!
I will easily concede that bureaucrats and politicians are much less or not at all likely to evaluate alternatives in cost and risk objectively as private enterprise does in making investment decisions. It is very easy to throw all caution to the wind when you are spending OPM and making that to your advantage. Everybody in the public sector has a profound conflict of interest, no accountability to speak of and scarce background in things they preside over. The engineers they hire usually do consider many options and risk but they usually are not listened to or say little if they are in conflict with the politicians dreams if they want repeat business.
I have a cynicism about gooberment that comes from experience. Gooberment, politicians and bureaucrats seldom do anything right. "If the government were put in charge of the Sahara Desert in five years there would be a shortage of sand." I believe it. Owing to politicians gooberment is inherently flawed because of the kind of people politics attracts.
The bridge will be rebuilt but without the classic lines of the overhead through truss that was knocked down. In all likelihood it will be one of the cable stayed eyesores that are now economical and popular. What a shame. Hopefully this time they will not build such spindly angular hollow piers, space them further apart and in water so shallow a ship can't pass by them How about that for an idea? Maybe a 2,000 foot main span instead of 1,200 feet? The deepest water at the location is only about 50 feet and you can see the bottom at the last approach span piers. Much better protection structures could be built without much drama.
The state's estimate for the original structure was right at $60mm, the bids came in considerably higher with the ultimate cost of $110mm or so. I'd bet a lot that there were lots of conversations about just what parts of the original design were necessary. I'd bet those main span piers being angled and hollow and poorly protected was design-cost compromise. Upon first sight those piers struck me as odd and odder when I saw they are hollow reinforced concrete; downright spindly for such a large structure.
If there is concern about critical infrastructure bridges the one on I-20 and the old highway 80 bridge just upstream of it at Vicksburg is a lulu. I don't know how many times they have been hit by massive strings of barges at high water with high velocity. The old highway 80 bridge somewhat protects the main I-20 span. Somehow they have survived but it beats me just how that has been possible. There are NO pier protection cells upstream of either bridge on that one. Every hit on the bridge is a direct one. These are just one example of probably thousands of bridges across the nation and world at risk.
BTW, the Key bridge was hit by a ship shortly after the Sunshine Skyway bridge failure. This isn't the first time it has been hit but it is the last.
A tunnel would seem to definitely be an option.
I believe I895 right up the road goes under harbor.
I’d think a tunnel costs more to build, but Biden has already said the taxpayers will foot the bill.
Tunnels they have and tunnels are fine for most traffic. The, oft sited problem yesterday, is oversized or hazardous traffic which can’t use them. Now that has to go the long way around and even after port reopens will slow some supply chains. But does that justify a $1B+ bridge as a one size fits all solution? How about a suitably priced toll ferry for that special traffic? That traffic is predictable and well known volume, doesn’t need to be speedy (although the hop is short enough for lots of trips daily). Impatient commuters can take the tunnels although ferries can make a bit on the side by taking bike and foot tourists Don’t need to handle a load bigger than could have crossed old bridge. Set the size and number of the ferries based on past volume. A lot quicker and cheaper to get up and running than a new bridge. Just need to avoid colliding with rest of boat traffic.
I know plenty of people who build in those flood and hurricane zones that have made big bank on damages paid for by the US Gov’t.
Yep, a very small price to pay for a fantastic return.
Without understanding that purpose and the danger of cramming them through the Tunnel, this article is incompletely thought out.
Especially in the era of DEI.
New York, Philly and Baltimore are doomed.
We now know the risk is too great.
No, "we" don't know that ... and a professional blabbermouth in CHICAGO is just about the last person I'd ask to assess the viability of a bridge in BALTIMORE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.