It happens with such frequency it’s almost become a cliché — a terrible disaster occurs, and in the following weeks, it’s revealed that alarm bells were ringing for years before the tragedy, warnings that went unheeded until it was too late. Officials knew before Hurricane Katrina in 2005 that New Orleans’ levees would be unable to withstand a devastating storm. NASA in 1986 overruled engineers who insisted the space shuttle Challenger was unsafe for launch. And, according to reporting this month in The Baltimore Sun, studies conducted by the Maryland Transportation Authority in the early 2000s found the Francis Scott Key Bridge was vulnerable to destruction, including from “ship impacts.”
It’s too late now to save the Key Bridge or the six lives lost in March when the Dali cargo ship collided with one of the bridge’s piers and brought it down, and there’s little use in dwelling on missed opportunities. But it’s worth reminding ourselves of what can happen when credible warnings are not met with appropriate action, particularly as we are now alerted to another potential future disaster in Baltimore that could jeopardize lives and the city’s economy.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, after conducting a three-year study of storm risk in Baltimore, released a report this month that highlights the flood risk to Baltimore’s two remaining harbor crossings, the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel and the I-895 Harbor Tunnel. In light of climate change and rising sea levels, which are projected to increase as much as 5.4 feet in Baltimore this century, the Army Corps recommends building more than 9,500 feet of floodwalls to protect the tunnels’ entrances and ventilation buildings.
It’s difficult to imagine the damage Baltimore would suffer from even the temporary loss of these tunnels, which are not just economic infrastructure but conduits that link the city’s fragmented communities. The Fort McHenry Tunnel is traveled by roughly 45 million vehicles per year and the Harbor Tunnel by 27 million, according to the project manager of the Army Corps study. Baltimore has only become more dependent on the tunnels after the collapse of the Key Bridge, whose diverted traffic “would add 18% to the combined volumes” of the tunnels, the U.S. Department of Transportation says.
No one wants to see Baltimore’s tunnels flooded. But the financial considerations at play mean there’s no guarantee we’ll see the necessary investments made to rectify the tunnels’ vulnerabilities. The Army Corps calls for an estimated $77 million to flood-proof the tunnels, with the Maryland Transporation Authority footing 35% of the bill and Congress the rest.
That’s not easy money to spare for the transportation authority as it contends with the Key Bridge’s collapse and the ensuing loss of toll revenue and is looking into a $145 million project to protect the Chesapeake Bay Bridge’s piers. Nor can we take for granted that Congress will easily agree to allocate the necessary funds.
But we would urge all parties to keep in mind that the costs they will pay should the tunnels flood will dwarf the bill for these preventative measures. One needs only to look to recent memory to find instances of cities that paid a great price when their tunnels flooded. Hurricane Sandy in 2012 flooded Manhattan’s tunnels, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. The city is still repairing some of them. Last year, a tunnel in Cheonju, South Korea, flooded amid heavy rains, and 14 people trapped in the tunnel died. “This kind of extreme weather event will become commonplace,” South Korea’s president said after the flood. “We must accept climate change is happening, and deal with it.”
Let’s take his advice. There’s no shortage of excuses we can make for not following through on these expensive flood protections. We can say it costs too much, we can say we have too many other priorities, but there will be one thing we can’t say should the worst happen: that we weren’t warned.
Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.
