- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Biden says that the Fed Gov't is going to fully fund the repair of the Scott Key Bridge
Posted on 3/27/24 at 3:54 pm to SoggyBottomBaw
Posted on 3/27/24 at 3:54 pm to SoggyBottomBaw
quote:
The Mario Cuomo Bridge (I'll still call it the Tappan Zee). It came in at 4b, is 3 miles long and took 7 years to complete.
I worked up in that area for two years and it always looked the same driving by it every day. I finished working on a million sq ft construction project before they did anything noticeable
0
Posted on 3/27/24 at 3:55 pm to bizeagle
quote:
That being said, maritime rules require that the ship drop anchor and wait for repair, if it has power problems. That did not happen. As there was enough time to call in an emergency and get local bridge traffic stopped, there was time to drop anchor. It's too bad that the ship lost power but they could have dropped anchor, stopped the boat and avoided crashing into the bridge. Heck it the harbor is only 50 feet deep. This is a really bad look for the ship captain, like there was incompetence and horrible decision making.
I read earlier that he ordered the boat to be steered hard to the shore and to drop anchor so as to try and stop it. Was that not actually the case?
Posted on 3/27/24 at 4:24 pm to justjoe906
quote:
Why not make the shipping company pay its part.
Or its insurers. That's what insurance is for.
Or if it is proven that the fuel was impure, go after that company.
This post was edited on 3/27/24 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 3/27/24 at 4:27 pm to justjoe906
quote:
Why not make the shipping company pay its part.
Because Maersk’s max liability is essentially the value of the ship. Their insurance is through a pool of like $3b.
That won’t come close to covering the damages here, much less a rebuild.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 4:28 pm to Bourre
quote:
I wonder what the difference between the 2 are?
The law and the facts. So effectively everything about it other than the simple fact that there was an incident.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 4:30 pm to bizeagle
quote:
That being said, maritime rules require that the ship drop anchor and wait for repair, if it has power problems.
Absolutely moronic take that only someone who thinks a ship that size can be stopped by an anchor within a few hundred yards can believe.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 4:37 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Because Maersk’s max liability is essentially the value of the ship. Their insurance is through a pool of like $3b.
That won’t come close to covering the damages here, much less a rebuild.
Reinsurance is $3B for Maersk.
There are other channels of insurance. And like BP after Deepwater Horizon and the Valdez spill, Maersk/Synergy Marine Group can both individually be responsible for overages.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 4:53 pm to meansonny
quote:
And like BP after Deepwater Horizon and the Valdez spill, Maersk/Synergy Marine Group can both individually be responsible for overages.
Even if that were true, none of it will come anywhere close to covering the damages and claims from the bridge collapse and harbor disruption.
The federal government paying for it is the only way the bridge gets rebuilt prior to two decades of protracted litigation.
Simple reality.
This post was edited on 3/27/24 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 3/27/24 at 5:05 pm to TerryDawg03
quote:
I’m no Biden fan, but wasn’t it an interstate highway anyway (I-695), which would fall under federal funding?
Posted on 3/27/24 at 5:17 pm to Longdriver98
Insanity
Posted on 3/27/24 at 5:24 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The federal government paying for it is the only way the bridge gets rebuilt prior to two decades of protracted litigation.
Simple reality.
That's not true.
Another bridge collapse ran $600M to rebuild. Things may be higher. But expectations aren't $3B for reconstruction alone.
quote:
none of it will come anywhere close to covering the damages and claims from the bridge collapse and harbor disruption.
That is an empty comment.
The bridge will run $1B.
Disruption will be big. But it isn't like other ports aren't looking to take in the business. And if reinsurance is $3B with reconstruction at $1B, that is a hefty sum to help with fatalities and harbor disruption.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 5:42 pm to Statestreet
Nope. WE THE PEOPLE of Lake Charles don't support the demoncrapic agenda, so we have to pay a toll instead.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 6:08 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Or its insurers. That's what insurance is for
That was my thoughts too. Why even have insurance if they’re just going to get a pass when it’s time to, umm, do their job?
Posted on 3/27/24 at 6:13 pm to meansonny
quote:
And if reinsurance is $3B with reconstruction at $1B, that is a hefty sum to help with fatalities and harbor disruption.
The bridge won’t only be $1b and $3b won’t be enough.
Bookmark this and we’ll revisit in five years.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 6:20 pm to Longdriver98
After they rebuild it the name will no longer be the Francis Scott Key bridge. This is why they are footing the bill.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 6:35 pm to bizeagle
quote:
That being said, maritime rules require that the ship drop anchor and wait for repair, if it has power problems. That did not happen.
You went on quite the pontification spree to have not spent any time determining what went on. They did indeed drop the port anchor.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 6:40 pm to SoggyBottomBaw
quote:there goes the greatest tunnel that ever lived
The Boston tunnel system (two tunnels -Summner and Ted Williams-, Zakim Bridge
Posted on 3/27/24 at 6:42 pm to meansonny
quote:
Reinsurance is $3B for Maersk.
There are other channels of insurance. And like BP after Deepwater Horizon and the Valdez spill, Maersk/Synergy Marine Group can both individually be responsible for overages.
The sticky wicket is the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, 46 USC § 30501. Which as a precious poster alluded to limits liability to the value of the ship. There are ways to get around the limitation and some preliminary facts have come out which may support that but you can guarantee the litigation involved in this will be very complex and very lengthy.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 6:45 pm to Longdriver98
Daddy gov is here to pay your student loans. Fix your bridges. Vaccinate your children and grandparents for free.
We even hand out 1000's of dollars a month to illegals who came here the wrong way. Then house them. And feed them. Give them free phones.
We even hand out 1000's of dollars a month to illegals who came here the wrong way. Then house them. And feed them. Give them free phones.
Posted on 3/27/24 at 6:47 pm to Longdriver98
quote:
Half a Trillion?
10% for the big guy
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News