Independent Docking Pilots, Inc.
P.O. Box 16514
Chesapeake, VA 23328
Mr. Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch
Fifth Coast Guard District
431 Crawford St.
Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004
July 2, 2009
Dear Mr. Gregory,
JORDAN BRIDGE
I am writing to voice opposition to the height and width limitations to the navigational channel of the proposed Jordan Bridge replacement (Public Notice 5-1147).
Limiting the navigational opening of the new bridge to the same dimensions as the former bridge, built in the 1920’s, would be detrimental to both current and future navigational safety.
The designers of the original Jordan Bridge showed great foresight when they built a bridge with a navigational opening that far exceeded the requirements of the ships of their day. Surely they anticipated that economies of scale would continue to push ship sizes steadily upward. Even so , they would probably have been shocked to see today’s ships passing through the bridge with a vertical clearance of less than the range of the tide and a width that leaves a maximum clearance per side of less than 25% of the ship’s beam.
Transiting the existing Jordan Bridge provides several serious ship-handling challenges.
1. The location of the bridge on a bend in the channel. This requires the ship to be turning while transiting the bridge. Because of the wide arc of swing of its stern, the swept path of a ship is wider during a turn than one travelling in a straight line. This is always taken into account in channel design, by making the channel wider in bends than in straight sections. During a normal southbound transit the alignment of the Belt Line Bridge makes it necessary to first swing to the west towards the Naval Shipyard so as to transit the Belt line close to perpendicular. This results in a greater course change when transiting the Jordan than might be apparent from a casual look at a chart. Instead of the desired increase in channel width at the Jordan Bridge turn, the channel narrows to the 220’ width of the bridge.
2. The bridge is not aligned perpendicularly to the channel. Simple geometry shows that this fact narrows the usable width of the opening to less than the 220’ advertised width.
3. The alignment of the bridge and bend in the channel results in a set from the current toward the east fender system, especially with ebb current.
4. Strong westerly winds, frequent during the winter months, compound the problem by increasing the set to the east, particularly with a lightly loaded ship.
In addition to all the ship-handling challenges that the new bridge would share with the old bridge, the new bridge lengthens the fender system on the north/south axis. This will further complicate the transit by increasing the distance that the ship must travel with a 220’ width restriction.
The widening of the Panama Canal will drastically change the size of ships calling on the East Coast of the US. Since 1914 the size of the majority of the world merchant fleet has been limited by the size restrictions of the canal. When the canal expansion is completed in 2014, the old Panamax size will be history. The new Panamax size, 1200’ LOA x 160’ Beam x 50’ Draft x 190’ Airdraft, will result in much larger ships calling on US East coast ports. I am concerned that the proposed Jordan Bridge will so severely limit the size of ships calling on the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River that it will negatively impact our business by making the terminals here less competitive than those in ports without such severe bridge limitations.
Independent Docking Pilots, Inc. believes that the proposed Jordan bridge replacement would be detrimental to navigational safety, and would negatively impact Maritime business on the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River including our Docking Pilot services.
Sincerely,
Captain Kevin P. Eley
President
-2-