You put in sheet piling 50 meters upstream, and you fill the box with rocks. That's state of the art practice, nowadays, but that bridge was 50 years old.
In 1977 (and in 1972, when construction began), vessels of this size did not exist, and certainly were not allowed in the harbor[1]. But over time, they were given authorization, despite the fact that they could collapse the unprotected bridge like a load of toothpicks.
The real crime here is that there was no retrofit to protect the pylons. It was almost certainly considered and rejected due to cost.
[1]: https://logisticselearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Co...
The ship in question here was 10K TEU.
The container vessel in question is tiny compared to e.g. the Seawise giant or Batillus Class.
The smaller VLCCs are dime a dozen and they are 2-3x the weight of the Dali.
Even ports on the US Gulf Coast do not generally have the capability to dock VLCCs.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36232
If Baltimore had been anticipating VLCC traffic in the 70s, then presumably the bridge would have been built accordingly and this incident would not have led to a collapse.