The Francis Scott Key Bridge was 30 times more susceptible to ship strikes than it should have been, the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday, and the risk of a similar disaster at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is still unknown because it has never been studied.

Jennifer Homendy, the NTSB chair, expressed frustration with the Maryland Transportation Authority and other bridge owners around the country in a press conference held in Washington. The NTSB recommended that 68 American bridges, including both spans of the Bay Bridge, be assessed for the possibility of collapse from vessel collision.

On March 26, 2024, the Dali container ship lost power and knocked down the Key Bridge, killing six construction workers who had been working on the span. In the year since, Homendy said her agency has been “sounding the alarm.”

“We need action,” she said. “Public safety depends on it.”

Guidance from the national bridge code in 1991 and again in 2009 recommended bridge owners assess their structures — many of which were built years ago, when cargo ships were much smaller — for risk of ship strikes.

However, dozens of bridge owners never completed those assessments.

“The Maryland Transportation Authority never ran the calculation on the Key Bridge, and as of October 2024, they still haven’t on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge,” Homendy said. “Had they ran the calculation on the Francis Scott Key Bridge, the MDTA would have been aware that the [risk] was almost 30 times greater than the risk threshold.”

That acceptable risk threshold is established by the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, which determine the national bridge code.

“Thirty times greater,” Homendy repeated, emphasizing the point.

The transportation authority said Friday that its risk evaluation was underway last fall when the NTSB requested its results.

Homendy said it was “frustrating” that the transportation authority did not have the necessary vessel data to share, which would have enabled the NTSB to conduct its own risk assessment of the Key Bridge.

“We asked them for that data. They didn’t have it. We had to develop that data ourselves with the help of our federal partners at the Federal Highway Administration,” she said.

Without risk assessments, which require in-depth mathematical formulas, it remains a mystery how much danger various bridges are in.

In addition to the Bay Bridge’s two spans, one other Maryland structure appeared on the NTSB’s list of 68 bridges that require assessment: the Chesapeake City Bridge — a span built in 1948 over the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal that car-carrying ships often squeeze through on their way to the Port of Baltimore. That bridge is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Bay Bridge, like the fallen Key Bridge, was built several decades ago and does not have the safety features of modern structures. Ships transiting under the Bay Bridge travel even faster than they do when approaching the Key Bridge.

However, both spans of the Bay Bridge have wider main spans than the original Key Bridge, meaning its piers are farther from the shipping channel.

The transportation authority last year said it was evaluating the addition of physical pier protection at the Bay Bridge and shared an initial budget for a $145 million project.

In a statement to The Baltimore Banner Thursday afternoon, the authority said it is “working with outside bridge experts to evaluate the pier protection systems and vessel transit procedures” for both the Bay Bridge and the new Key Bridge, which is slated to be completed in 2028.

Over the past 10 years, the authority noted, it has spent $175 million on safety and security projects at the Bay Bridge.

On Friday, the authority said it is reviewing the NTSB’s recommendations and will provide an update to the federal agency “within 30 days, which will include any action we intend to take based on our active evaluation of the pier protection systems, operational changes, and vessel transit procedures of the Bay Bridge.”

Homendy said the NTSB will soon release over 1,000 pages of “investigative material.” Their final report into the disaster is expected this fall.