Delaware Bay Crossings.

[Beltway]

Would depend on both states seeing the need.  If one state alone then it would not be buildable.

If it would carry 8,000 to 10,000 or more vehicles per day then it would clearly be justifiable.

I wonder if any traffic projection study was ever performed?

The Bridge will get traffic just as any other bridge connecting two states. Mind you, these states are also major and are key in the northeast-MidAtlantic Region.

Plus it is a missing link in the East Coast north-south highway.

When the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel was opened in 1964, it was said to have completed the last missing link in the East Coast north-south highway.

That is not really true, as Delaware Bay is a missing link.  The Delaware Memorial Bridge is too far inland to be called an East Coast north-south highway; it is over 80 miles from the coast.

[Beltway]

2 years ago, when this idea previously came to light on the forum, I posted this.  It's just as valid now as it was then.

The route I used when I mapped this out in the 1970s had most depths in the 20 to 40 foot range, and a couple miles of about 70 foot depth.  Much like the CBBT route.

There is one main shipping channel, and I put a high-level bridge over that.  The channel is Brandywine Range and it is about mid-way on the bridge route and the bridge is aligned to cross the channel at a 90-degree angle; that is why there is an about 40-degree dogleg in the bridge.  That route also takes advantage of shallower water as compared to a direct line between the two capes.  My route is 16 miles from shore to shore.

See chart --
http://pennways.com/Delaware_Bay_Bridge_XL_channel.jpg

There are four hash marks just to the right of the curve, that is the high-level span.
The red line denotes the deep water shipping route.

[davewiecking]

Beltway: I'm curious about your base chart-last night I found a copy of a NOAA chart titled "Cape May to Fenwick Island", which says "37th Ed., June 27/92, number 12214, Loran-C Overprinted" in the lower left. My (shorter) version of the bridge was a bit east of yours, but still maintained the Coast Guard requirement of right angle crossing of the main shipping channel. The main difference in my chart (obviously not available in the 70's) is the amount of the Bay closest to Lewes that's between 100 and 150 feet deep. I should be somewhere with a working scanner in the next day or so.

Hopefully someone here knows the eastern limit of the DRBA's authority. If such a thing were to be built, I think it should be their baby, perhaps with some private support.

Your proposed DE access road paralleling US 9 past US 113 to US13 makes sense to me, but probably won't to the citizens of Sussex County. I believe there are only 4 instances of one road bridging another road in the county (all because a bridge was crossing something else-train tracks or a body of water-so it made some sense to also cross the parallel road), and no true interchanges, so this type of infrastructure would be unique to the rural (and touristy) LSD.

[Beltway]

Beltway: I'm curious about your base chart-last night I found a copy of a NOAA chart titled "Cape May to Fenwick Island", which says "37th Ed., June 27/92, number 12214, Loran-C Overprinted" in the lower left. My (shorter) version of the bridge was a bit east of yours, but still maintained the Coast Guard requirement of right angle crossing of the main shipping channel. The main difference in my chart (obviously not available in the 70's) is the amount of the Bay closest to Lewes that's between 100 and 150 feet deep. I should be somewhere with a working scanner in the next day or so.

Topographically there isn't a shipping channel in the area midway between the capes, it is a large area with water much deeper than the deepest draft ships.

It is hard to tell on that chart but it doesn't look like there is a marked channel either.  Basically open sea.

Hopefully someone here knows the eastern limit of the DRBA's authority. If such a thing were to be built, I think it should be their baby, perhaps with some private support.

Your proposed DE access road paralleling US 9 past US 113 to US13 makes sense to me, but probably won't to the citizens of Sussex County. I believe there are only 4 instances of one road bridging another road in the county (all because a bridge was crossing something else-train tracks or a body of water-so it made some sense to also cross the parallel road), and no true interchanges, so this type of infrastructure would be unique to the rural (and touristy) LSD.

My route is definitely in Delaware Bay, so DRBA should handle it.  The Delaware River & Bay Authority (DRBA) website says that they administer the current bridge as well as the ferry.

The approach highway in Delaware could take a different corridor, but I think my landing point for the bridge would be the most optimum.

[Tonytone]

Beltway: I'm curious about your base chart-last night I found a copy of a NOAA chart titled "Cape May to Fenwick Island", which says "37th Ed., June 27/92, number 12214, Loran-C Overprinted" in the lower left. My (shorter) version of the bridge was a bit east of yours, but still maintained the Coast Guard requirement of right angle crossing of the main shipping channel. The main difference in my chart (obviously not available in the 70's) is the amount of the Bay closest to Lewes that's between 100 and 150 feet deep. I should be somewhere with a working scanner in the next day or so.

Topographically there isn't a shipping channel in the area midway between the capes, it is a large area with water much deeper than the deepest draft ships.

It is hard to tell on that chart but it doesn't look like there is a marked channel either.  Basically open sea.

Hopefully someone here knows the eastern limit of the DRBA's authority. If such a thing were to be built, I think it should be their baby, perhaps with some private support.

Your proposed DE access road paralleling US 9 past US 113 to US13 makes sense to me, but probably won't to the citizens of Sussex County. I believe there are only 4 instances of one road bridging another road in the county (all because a bridge was crossing something else-train tracks or a body of water-so it made some sense to also cross the parallel road), and no true interchanges, so this type of infrastructure would be unique to the rural (and touristy) LSD.

My route is definitely in Delaware Bay, so DRBA should handle it.  The Delaware River & Bay Authority (DRBA) website says that they administer the current bridge as well as the ferry.

The approach highway in Delaware could take a different corridor, but I think my landing point for the bridge would be the most optimum.

They could finish Delaware 1 by having an interchange for Rt-9, (which they could turn into a limited access road, just like Rt-273, Rt-4 Newport freeway.) Rt-9 if turned into limited access could then easily be connected with New frontage roads, etc. i can see this as a new & better way in the coming years. Also this would give Delaware a chance to collect some revenue as people traveling will pay a toll on the bridge & spend money in the tax-free state.


iPhone

[Beltway]

The approach highway in Delaware could take a different corridor, but I think my landing point for the bridge would be the most optimum.

They could finish Delaware 1 by having an interchange for Rt-9, (which they could turn into a limited access road, just like Rt-273, Rt-4 Newport freeway.) Rt-9 if turned into limited access could then easily be connected with New frontage roads, etc. i can see this as a new & better way in the coming years. Also this would give Delaware a chance to collect some revenue as people traveling will pay a toll on the bridge & spend money in the tax-free state.

The connector to the Garden State Parkway would only be about 5 miles long.

What are the issues regarding letting large trucks utilize the Garden State Parkway north of Asbury Park at least to the NJTP and I-287?  Are the overpasses high enough?

[Tonytone]

The approach highway in Delaware could take a different corridor, but I think my landing point for the bridge would be the most optimum.

They could finish Delaware 1 by having an interchange for Rt-9, (which they could turn into a limited access road, just like Rt-273, Rt-4 Newport freeway.) Rt-9 if turned into limited access could then easily be connected with New frontage roads, etc. i can see this as a new & better way in the coming years. Also this would give Delaware a chance to collect some revenue as people traveling will pay a toll on the bridge & spend money in the tax-free state.

What are the issues regarding letting large trucks utilize the Garden State Parkway north of Asbury Park at least to the NJTP and I-287?  Are the overpasses high enough?

I have no idea, search it up that is most likely the reason, but if this were built then they might aswell do 3-3-3-3 or 3-3-3 configurations. For trucks, or the easy way & raise the "low overpasses".


iPhone

[Tonytone]

Now if you really wanted to have a new through way to NY, a bridge in the Lower Bay would defiantly be a plus. I drew a spur off the GSP which would go to the new Bridge ( this one may or may not be easier to build). Then with a connector it would connect to I-278.



As you can see the bridge could be anywhere between the ferry and going north. Where i circled is where the interchange and new highway (only a couple miles) to connect the bridge would go. On the jersey side it would be much easier connecting roads, a parkway lies waiting.

[SteveG1988]

It will be built after NJ55 gets finished, The parkway is signed as an interstate, the Atlantic City Expressway gets signed as an interstate with proper signage, and  we have a lunar colony.

[Tonytone]

https://idea.library.drexel.edu/islandora/object/idea%3A1331


iPhone

[Beltway]

https://idea.library.drexel.edu/islandora/object/idea%3A1331
iPhone

That is about 30 miles upstream of the mouth of the bay at Cape May and Cape Henlopen.

I don't see the need for a Delaware Bay tunnel.  The CBBT has tunnels because of the massive naval presence upstream of there.  Even the former Philadelphia Navy Yard had three high-level bridges downstream of there.  Underwater tunnels are usually massively more expensive to build than a high-level bridge.

[Tonytone]

https://idea.library.drexel.edu/islandora/object/idea%3A1331
iPhone

That is about 30 miles upstream of the mouth of the bay at Cape May and Cape Henlopen.

I don't see the need for a Delaware Bay tunnel.  The CBBT has tunnels because of the massive naval presence upstream of there.  Even the former Philadelphia Navy Yard had three high-level bridges downstream of there.  Underwater tunnels are usually massively more expensive to build than a high-level bridge.

Yea I seen this was farther upstream. But also another thing to think about is the amount of jobs that will be made because of this project, construction, bridge control, Coast guards, restaurants (if they build man made islands). & more America is known as strong, this generation is becoming soft, if its not built in my lifetime ill make sure it will be for the next.


iPhone

[jeffandnicole]

https://idea.library.drexel.edu/islandora/object/idea%3A1331
iPhone

That is about 30 miles upstream of the mouth of the bay at Cape May and Cape Henlopen.

I don't see the need for a Delaware Bay tunnel.  The CBBT has tunnels because of the massive naval presence upstream of there.  Even the former Philadelphia Navy Yard had three high-level bridges downstream of there.  Underwater tunnels are usually massively more expensive to build than a high-level bridge.

Yea I seen this was farther upstream. But also another thing to think about is the amount of jobs that will be made because of this project, construction, bridge control, Coast guards, restaurants (if they build man made islands). & more America is known as strong, this generation is becoming soft, if its not built in my lifetime ill make sure it will be for the next.


iPhone

Net jobs:  0.

Let's say the project would cost $1,000,000,000.  No doubt, that would create a lot of jobs.  Or, the $1,000,000,000 would be spent on other projects - repavings, highway expansions, overpass rebuilds, etc.  They will create a lot of jobs as well.

So if there's money to be spent, the money will be spent, and jobs will come because of it.  But the net number of jobs this project would create over other projects:  None.

As for a restaurant, even the CBBT is getting rid of theirs.  And if there's no need for a tunnel, there's no need for a massive man-made island, which would be fairly essential in order to have a restaurant in the middle of the bay.

The approach highway in Delaware could take a different corridor, but I think my landing point for the bridge would be the most optimum.

They could finish Delaware 1 by having an interchange for Rt-9, (which they could turn into a limited access road, just like Rt-273, Rt-4 Newport freeway.) Rt-9 if turned into limited access could then easily be connected with New frontage roads, etc. i can see this as a new & better way in the coming years. Also this would give Delaware a chance to collect some revenue as people traveling will pay a toll on the bridge & spend money in the tax-free state.

The connector to the Garden State Parkway would only be about 5 miles long.

What are the issues regarding letting large trucks utilize the Garden State Parkway north of Asbury Park at least to the NJTP and I-287?  Are the overpasses high enough?

I don't think it's a bridge issue.  Buses use the Parkway without a problem.  Even trucks that don't understand the No Truck prohibition use the Parkway...and the toll plazas are set up to accept payments from them.  When it comes down to it, for all the theories people have in regards to why trucks can't use the Parkway, the simple answer is the Parkway simply doesn't want the trucks using the Parkway.

[Tonytone]

https://idea.library.drexel.edu/islandora/object/idea%3A1331
iPhone

That is about 30 miles upstream of the mouth of the bay at Cape May and Cape Henlopen.

I don't see the need for a Delaware Bay tunnel.  The CBBT has tunnels because of the massive naval presence upstream of there.  Even the former Philadelphia Navy Yard had three high-level bridges downstream of there.  Underwater tunnels are usually massively more expensive to build than a high-level bridge.

Yea I seen this was farther upstream. But also another thing to think about is the amount of jobs that will be made because of this project, construction, bridge control, Coast guards, restaurants (if they build man made islands). & more America is known as strong, this generation is becoming soft, if its not built in my lifetime ill make sure it will be for the next.


iPhone

Net jobs:  0.

Let's say the project would cost $1,000,000,000.  No doubt, that would create a lot of jobs.  Or, the $1,000,000,000 would be spent on other projects - repavings, highway expansions, overpass rebuilds, etc.  They will create a lot of jobs as well.

So if there's money to be spent, the money will be spent, and jobs will come because of it.  But the net number of jobs this project would create over other projects:  None.

As for a restaurant, even the CBBT is getting rid of theirs.  And if there's no need for a tunnel, there's no need for a massive man-made island, which would be fairly essential in order to have a restaurant in the middle of the bay.

The approach highway in Delaware could take a different corridor, but I think my landing point for the bridge would be the most optimum.

They could finish Delaware 1 by having an interchange for Rt-9, (which they could turn into a limited access road, just like Rt-273, Rt-4 Newport freeway.) Rt-9 if turned into limited access could then easily be connected with New frontage roads, etc. i can see this as a new & better way in the coming years. Also this would give Delaware a chance to collect some revenue as people traveling will pay a toll on the bridge & spend money in the tax-free state.

The connector to the Garden State Parkway would only be about 5 miles long.

What are the issues regarding letting large trucks utilize the Garden State Parkway north of Asbury Park at least to the NJTP and I-287?  Are the overpasses high enough?

I don't think it's a bridge issue.  Buses use the Parkway without a problem.  Even trucks that don't understand the No Truck prohibition use the Parkway...and the toll plazas are set up to accept payments from them.  When it comes down to it, for all the theories people have in regards to why trucks can't use the Parkway, the simple answer is the Parkway simply doesn't want the trucks using the Parkway.

Net jobs will be 0? How? Now yes we can use that money on other infrastructure. But lets keep it real some of the infrastructure doesnt even deserve a rebuild or the money to be wasted because of so many problems, heres an example, would you rather keep putting money in a old 98 Acura Tl or buy a brand new 2015 nissan or honda, which will last probably 50 more years then the acura when it came out. Also its a "parkway" its supposed to be a nice scenic drive, so I could understand the "No trucks" thats fine keep it strictly cars & maybe traffic would move better compared to other roads, this also ties into the speed limit being at least 70-75 which would cut travel time in half, Jeff, idk if you have realized but on the east coast the flow of traffic is pretty fast, sometimes I dont even wanna drive 85-90 but the flow of traffic is going like that so why not. The tolls will pay for the bridge itself, the Delmarva really doesnt have "high tolls prices" compared to NY. I do know that Havre Da Grace toll is $8 & that pays for both ways. But nothing compared to $15. This toll wouldn't even have to be $15 it could be $8 one way or $4 both ways & still make a killing. The area around this will benefit & create something new. Yes I-95 still needs work but I-95 thru philly is a joke, & to spend more money on a alley with ramps is a waste of money to me.


iPhone

[Tonytone]

Now if you really wanted to have a new through way to NY, a bridge in the Lower Bay would defiantly be a plus. I drew a spur off the GSP which would go to the new Bridge ( this one may or may not be easier to build). Then with a connector it would connect to I-278.



As you can see the bridge could be anywhere between the ferry and going north. Where i circled is where the interchange and new highway (only a couple miles) to connect the bridge would go. On the jersey side it would be much easier connecting roads, a parkway lies waiting.

iPhone

[Roadgeekteen]

Now if you really wanted to have a new through way to NY, a bridge in the Lower Bay would defiantly be a plus. I drew a spur off the GSP which would go to the new Bridge ( this one may or may not be easier to build). Then with a connector it would connect to I-278.



As you can see the bridge could be anywhere between the ferry and going north. Where i circled is where the interchange and new highway (only a couple miles) to connect the bridge would go. On the jersey side it would be much easier connecting roads, a parkway lies waiting.

iPhone

There are more useless tonytone quotes than interstates in my system.

[Tonytone]

Now if you really wanted to have a new through way to NY, a bridge in the Lower Bay would defiantly be a plus. I drew a spur off the GSP which would go to the new Bridge ( this one may or may not be easier to build). Then with a connector it would connect to I-278.



As you can see the bridge could be anywhere between the ferry and going north. Where i circled is where the interchange and new highway (only a couple miles) to connect the bridge would go. On the jersey side it would be much easier connecting roads, a parkway lies waiting.

iPhone

There are more useless tonytone quotes than interstates in my system.

RoadGeek, Please DO NOT comment if you don't have anything good to say, I see you do this on other posts aswell.

[Roadgeekteen]

Now if you really wanted to have a new through way to NY, a bridge in the Lower Bay would defiantly be a plus. I drew a spur off the GSP which would go to the new Bridge ( this one may or may not be easier to build). Then with a connector it would connect to I-278.



As you can see the bridge could be anywhere between the ferry and going north. Where i circled is where the interchange and new highway (only a couple miles) to connect the bridge would go. On the jersey side it would be much easier connecting roads, a parkway lies waiting.

iPhone

There are more useless tonytone quotes than interstates in my system.

RoadGeek, Please DO NOT comment if you don't have anything good to say, I see you do this on other posts aswell.

Those quotes have no purpose or point whatsoever. Care to explain what exactly they are for?

[Tonytone]

Now if you really wanted to have a new through way to NY, a bridge in the Lower Bay would defiantly be a plus. I drew a spur off the GSP which would go to the new Bridge ( this one may or may not be easier to build). Then with a connector it would connect to I-278.



As you can see the bridge could be anywhere between the ferry and going north. Where i circled is where the interchange and new highway (only a couple miles) to connect the bridge would go. On the jersey side it would be much easier connecting roads, a parkway lies waiting.

iPhone

There are more useless tonytone quotes than interstates in my system.

RoadGeek, Please DO NOT comment if you don't have anything good to say, I see you do this on other posts aswell.

Those quotes have no purpose or point whatsoever. Care to explain what exactly they are for?

Yes these Quotes with the pictures if you have not noticed, have drawings of where potential bridges could be. But i guess you ASSummed that the bridge going thru the Lower Bay was already there and the bridge Going across Delaware bay was already there. Please read the post and look at pictures more carefully.

[Roadgeekteen]

Now if you really wanted to have a new through way to NY, a bridge in the Lower Bay would defiantly be a plus. I drew a spur off the GSP which would go to the new Bridge ( this one may or may not be easier to build). Then with a connector it would connect to I-278.



As you can see the bridge could be anywhere between the ferry and going north. Where i circled is where the interchange and new highway (only a couple miles) to connect the bridge would go. On the jersey side it would be much easier connecting roads, a parkway lies waiting.

iPhone

There are more useless tonytone quotes than interstates in my system.

RoadGeek, Please DO NOT comment if you don't have anything good to say, I see you do this on other posts aswell.

Those quotes have no purpose or point whatsoever. Care to explain what exactly they are for?

Yes these Quotes with the pictures if you have not noticed, have drawings of where potential bridges could be. But i guess you ASSummed that the bridge going thru the Lower Bay was already there and the bridge Going across Delaware bay was already there. Please read the post and look at pictures more carefully.

I looked at all the pictures, still see no difference.

[Tonytone]

Now if you really wanted to have a new through way to NY, a bridge in the Lower Bay would defiantly be a plus. I drew a spur off the GSP which would go to the new Bridge ( this one may or may not be easier to build). Then with a connector it would connect to I-278.



As you can see the bridge could be anywhere between the ferry and going north. Where i circled is where the interchange and new highway (only a couple miles) to connect the bridge would go. On the jersey side it would be much easier connecting roads, a parkway lies waiting.

iPhone

There are more useless tonytone quotes than interstates in my system.

RoadGeek, Please DO NOT comment if you don't have anything good to say, I see you do this on other posts aswell.

Those quotes have no purpose or point whatsoever. Care to explain what exactly they are for?

Yes these Quotes with the pictures if you have not noticed, have drawings of where potential bridges could be. But i guess you ASSummed that the bridge going thru the Lower Bay was already there and the bridge Going across Delaware bay was already there. Please read the post and look at pictures more carefully.

I looked at all the pictures, still see no difference.

Of course you dont, look again


iPhone

[PHLBOS]

Tony,

I believe that Roadgeekteen was referring to your Reply #65; which is simply quoting your earlier Reply #58 (containing the images) with no additional comment nor explanation outside the quote. 

IMHO, it's an unnecessary double-post.

[Tonytone]

Tony,

I believe that Roadgeekteen was referring to your Reply #65; which is simply quoting your earlier Reply #58 (containing the images) with no additional comment nor explanation outside the quote. 

IMHO, it's an unnecessary double-post.

Yea i posted the quote again to show the crossings over water, some people learn easier by seeing a picture compared to being told.


iPhone

[PHLBOS]

Yea i posted the quote again to show the crossings over water, some people learn easier by seeing a picture compared to being told.

Okay.  However, I would recommend that if one needs to repost/quote an earlier reply (containing the same images again); it would be prudent (not to mention better etiquette) to add a comment/explanation/reply for such (reposting/quoting).

[jeffandnicole]

Yes these Quotes with the pictures if you have not noticed, have drawings of where potential bridges could be. But i guess you ASSummed that the bridge going thru the Lower Bay was already there and the bridge Going across Delaware bay was already there. Please read the post and look at pictures more carefully.

Based on this comment on page 2, your assumption is wrong:

Probably would take to much money to build such long of a bridge.

And frankly, he's right in regards to your quoting previous posts without any further explanation.  We were all confused what you were trying to show.