U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge

Started by cpzilliacus, December 20, 2012, 10:08:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 24, 2019, 05:36:50 PM
Didn't a similar situation happen with the US-17 relocation in Southern Chesapeake, coming out far lower than engineer estimate?
Yes, and what I wrote on my website in 2007 is another example of what I am talking about. 

What the construction industry is willing to bid on a contract can vary considerably depending on the current state of that industry.

If the bids come in too high, the agency may decide to re-advertise the contract.  If the bids are too low, then they can enjoy the windfall.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/US17-VA-Chesapeake.html

The prime construction contractor on the project was Barnhill Contracting Company, and the construction contract cost $41.96 million.

The contract bid amount was well below the engineering estimate for the project, and that provided a benefit to VDOT and the taxpayers.  As of the December 2002 bid opening, the VDOT Six-Year Program entry for that project was $76.566 million programmed for Construction.  There were 8 bids distributed between $41,039,684.75 (Barnhill) and $46,929,719.80.  For 11.6 miles of mostly new-location four-lane highway at a cost of $41.96 million, that works out to an average per mile cost of $3.62 million.  The project has two bridges, twin bridges over wetlands, each 984 feet long.  Sometimes the state of the national economy is such that contractors are hungry for work and will bid much lower on a project than ordinarily.  That was a very good deal for that amount of highway construction, and the quality of work is very good.  The 2006 Six-Year Program entry for this project shows expenditures of $3.46 million for Preliminary Engineering, and $12.338 million for Right-of-Way acquisition.  Total costs for the project amount to $57.758 million.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)


Alps

Quote from: hbelkins on November 24, 2019, 06:33:39 PM
I really wish states would use their ability to estimate project costs to get bids down. Most of the contractors who bid on road projects don't do anything else. If the state would start setting lower estimates and rejecting bids, the companies would have to reduce their bids accordingly to get work.
"I really wish construction workers weren't paid fairly." "I really wish construction companies weren't allowed to make profits."
They're bidding what they need to bid to do the job, knowing that contingencies arise during construction. Companies will only take a loss or work for no profit if they desperately need the work to avoid letting their workers go.

Rothman

On top of that, few states would jeopardize their capital program schedule to pick fights with the contracting community, which may have considerable sway over the DOTs' bosses -- the Governors.  Bringing a program to a crashing halt in a gambit to lower bids would be politically infeasible.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: hbelkins on November 24, 2019, 06:33:39 PM
I'm wondering if adjustments in labor costs can result in bids coming in below estimates.

Probably not if there is federal money involved (and the Davis-Bacon Act applies).  Davis-Bacon requires
contractors on construction projects with federal dollars to pay "prevailing" (as in union-scale) wages to
employees. 

In some places, an advertisement for bids will say something like "Wage rates to be paid on this project
have been pre-determined by the U.S. Department of Labor," which almost certainly means that the
Davis-Bacon Act applies.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 24, 2019, 06:33:39 PM
A couple of years ago, Kentucky repealed its state prevailing wage law for school construction contracts. (I'm pretty sure it didn't apply to road construction contracts, especially since many of those projects are federally funded and thus would be subject to federal laws such as Davis-Bacon). Shortly thereafter, a contract was let for construction of a new school in a county about an hour away. I'm told the bids came in $6 million below estimates because the cost of labor was drastically reduced.

I really wish states would use their ability to estimate project costs to get bids down. Most of the contractors who bid on road projects don't do anything else. If the state would start setting lower estimates and rejecting bids, the companies would have to reduce their bids accordingly to get work.

In order for that to happen, Kentucky would need to stop using federal dollars on highway projects - or
get Congress to repeal Davis-Bacon.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Duke87

Quote from: Alps on November 24, 2019, 09:50:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 24, 2019, 06:33:39 PM
I really wish states would use their ability to estimate project costs to get bids down. Most of the contractors who bid on road projects don't do anything else. If the state would start setting lower estimates and rejecting bids, the companies would have to reduce their bids accordingly to get work.
"I really wish construction workers weren't paid fairly." "I really wish construction companies weren't allowed to make profits."
They're bidding what they need to bid to do the job, knowing that contingencies arise during construction. Companies will only take a loss or work for no profit if they desperately need the work to avoid letting their workers go.

FWIW there is still the issue that public infrastructure construction costs more in the US than it does anywhere else in the world. Somewhere, somehow, it must be possible to drag those costs down and still get work done.

But I don't think beating up contractors on price is going to be an effective way to do it.

Tort reform might be, though. Liability is expensive.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Alps

Quote from: Duke87 on November 25, 2019, 11:53:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 24, 2019, 09:50:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 24, 2019, 06:33:39 PM
I really wish states would use their ability to estimate project costs to get bids down. Most of the contractors who bid on road projects don't do anything else. If the state would start setting lower estimates and rejecting bids, the companies would have to reduce their bids accordingly to get work.
"I really wish construction workers weren't paid fairly." "I really wish construction companies weren't allowed to make profits."
They're bidding what they need to bid to do the job, knowing that contingencies arise during construction. Companies will only take a loss or work for no profit if they desperately need the work to avoid letting their workers go.

FWIW there is still the issue that public infrastructure construction costs more in the US than it does anywhere else in the world. Somewhere, somehow, it must be possible to drag those costs down and still get work done.

But I don't think beating up contractors on price is going to be an effective way to do it.

Tort reform might be, though. Liability is expensive.
Willing to bet you if we had higher taxes, everyone had a higher base wage, free health care, subsidized or free secondary education, etc. etc., these costs would come down.

Duke87

Quote from: Alps on November 27, 2019, 12:33:42 AM
Willing to bet you if we had higher taxes, everyone had a higher base wage, free health care, subsidized or free secondary education, etc. etc., these costs would come down.

Indeed, this is one thing that has been posited is that much of the higher costs of construction in the US are effectively a matter of accounting - that the quoted costs of projects in the US are inflated by virtue of including expenses like healthcare for the workers which in another country would be an entirely separate budget item in an entirely different department.

That only goes so far though. And it has been observed that construction costs are inflated in all countries whose legal systems are based on the English common law system - i.e. countries where it is easy to file a lawsuit and they are the standard means of resolving contractual disputes. Hence why I bring up tort reform.

Construction costs in the US are about 4x what they are in Australia, for example (also an English common law country), but are as much as 10x what they are in continental Europe (different legal system entirely).
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

cpzilliacus

Some blowback regarding the decision to not build a bike and pedestrian trail across the new Nice/Middleton Bridge.

Note that I disagree with the comments in this article about the incomplete ICC (MD-200) trail - the fault for that not being completed rests with the county government agencies in Montgomery County and Prince George's County Planning Boards as well as both County Councils, who should have insisted that the trail be completed as described in their master plan documents.  MdTA would have built a complete trail if the counties had insisted upon it, as they should have.

Opinion: Implications of the Broken Promise on the Nice Bridge
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2019, 11:18:05 AM
Some blowback regarding the decision to not build a bike and pedestrian trail across the new Nice/Middleton Bridge.

I am much more concerned about the lack of full shoulders than I am about the bike and pedestrian trail.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2019, 03:25:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2019, 11:18:05 AM
Some blowback regarding the decision to not build a bike and pedestrian trail across the new Nice/Middleton Bridge.

I am much more concerned about the lack of full shoulders than I am about the bike and pedestrian trail.
Problem is - RE/T groups don't care about the safety of motorists, only bicyclists and pedestrians.

Ideally, they should build both a shoulder and a bicycle / pedestrian trail, even with the extra costs it's better in the long-run, but if only one, a shoulder should be far greater of a need than a trail.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2019, 03:25:00 PM
I am much more concerned about the lack of full shoulders than I am about the bike and pedestrian trail.
Problem is - RE/T groups don't care about the safety of motorists, only bicyclists and pedestrians.
Ideally, they should build both a shoulder and a bicycle / pedestrian trail, even with the extra costs it's better in the long-run, but if only one, a shoulder should be far greater of a need than a trail.
And still be far below the $762 million estimate of Nov. 2016.

Granted that a 10-foot shoulder could be used by bicycles and pedestrians, but it would be a very noisy environment, based on my experiences with the new VA-147 Huguenot Bridge, which has a 45 mph speed limit (appropriate given the nature of Huguenot Road), and very low truck traffic.  The new Nice Bridge will see 55 to 60 mph speeds, and currently carries about 26,000 AADT and 1,500 large truck AADT, which will undoubtedly increase.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#161
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2019, 03:51:20 PM
based on my experiences with the new VA-147 Huguenot Bridge, which has a 45 mph speed limit (appropriate given the nature of Huguenot Road), and very low truck traffic.
Looking at Street View, doesn't that bridge also have sidewalks on both sides, plus that 8-10 foot shoulder?

And agree completely. I've crossed a few different bridges utilizing the paved shoulder due to lack of trail / sidewalk, and even with speeds as low as 35 mph, it's still better off having at minimum a sidewalk.

The new Nice Bridge would be effectively a freeway with traffic doing 60-70 mph (especially on the descend) and I wouldn't want to be riding a bicycle or walking on a 10 foot shoulder, and certainly not a 2 foot shoulder as they are going forth with. It's not some minor rural road bridge. I don't even like being parked in my car on the shoulder of a flat freeway, walking / biking on a shoulder being unprotected from the travel lanes, you're just asking for something to happen.

Beltway

#162
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2019, 03:51:20 PM
based on my experiences with the new VA-147 Huguenot Bridge, which has a 45 mph speed limit (appropriate given the nature of Huguenot Road), and very low truck traffic.
Looking at Street View, doesn't that bridge also have sidewalks on both sides, plus that 8-10 foot shoulder?
10 foot shoulder and 5 foot sidewalk on each side.

I walked across it once and biked across it once, way too noisy.  Very few people do it, even though it is well positioned for neighborhoods and the University of Richmond, and has beautiful views of the James River; the -average- number I see is less than one per trip, and I cross it several times a week and have for years.

South of the river there is Riverside Drive paralleling the river, with almost unlimited enjoyment for walkers and cyclists; no need to cross the river if you live on that side.

I recently got a boat, so that is another way that I will be enjoying the river.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7411678,-76.3450989,3a,64.7y,133.75h,81.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5QjiUVYkYjld1h6QE9qgxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

This bridge in the Deep Creek area of Chesapeake was built in the 1934 even features a sidewalk that's physically separated from the roadway.

It's not bad crossing despite the heavy traffic load, though in fairness the only time I've crossed it was during peak hours, and Deep Creek is a parking lot during peak hours and the fastest traffic moved was 25 - 30 mph. The sidewalk is in terrible shape, but doable.

The bridge is getting replaced with a 5-lane bridge beginning early next year. Will be a major improvement to the area, mainly traffic wise doubling the capacity, and will feature a multi-use path, and a traffic signal at George Washington Hwy South / Moses Grandy Trl along with improved sidewalk access and crosswalks.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 04:10:49 PM
This bridge in the Deep Creek area of Chesapeake was built in the 1934 even features a sidewalk that's physically separated from the roadway.
The bridge is getting replaced with a 5-lane bridge beginning early next year. Will be a major improvement to the area, mainly traffic wise doubling the capacity, and will feature a multi-use path, and a traffic signal at George Washington Hwy South / Moses Grandy Trl along with improved sidewalk access and crosswalks.
How much vertical navigational clearance on the new bridge?

Drawbridge openings and very low clearance over the canal are a major part of the problem.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#165
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2019, 04:13:45 PM
How much vertical navigational clearance on the new bridge?

Drawbridge openings and very low clearance over the canal are a major part of the problem.
The vertical clearance will still be the current ~5 ft. There's no room to build a higher bridge. Similar situation with the Great Bridge bridge replacement a decade ago in Great Bridge, still low clearance.

The drawbridge openings aren't the problem here honestly. It's the road network, and the massive traffic chokepoint the crossing is.

The bridge has a restricted opening schedule, and only opens at 8:30 am, 11 am, 1:30 pm, and 3:30 pm. It doesn't present any traffic issues at peak hours as it does not lift then.

Here's the design for the new bridge and roadway improvements (large file) - https://media.defense.gov/2018/Aug/14/2001954208/-1/-1/1/080814-A-EN999-102.JPG

Project websites -
https://www.nao.usace.army.mil/About/Projects/AIWW-Deep-Creek-Bridge/
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/government/city-departments/departments/Public-Works-Department/Deep-Creek-AIW-Bridge.htm

The biggest chokepoints - the merge from 2 to 1 lane heading WB on Moses Grandy Trl, the 1-2 mile backup of traffic (that impedes the mainline) SB waiting to turn left onto the bridge, the ~1/2 mile backup NB on George Washington Hwy on the east side waiting to turn onto the bridge at an intersection controlled by a stop sign, and the lack of dedicated right turn lane heading WB over the bridge, where vehicles going straight frequently block turning traffic (since it only takes 1-2 vehicles to block it) resulting in heavier congestion on the east side - would all be alleviated with this project. Continuous 3 lanes over the bridge WB, double left and 2 lanes over the bridge EB, traffic signal at George Washington Hwy on the east side with a double left NB, and a dedicated right turn lane heading WB, allowing a free-flowing movement.

Interestingly, after looking at the design plans, I noticed they are eliminating the separation between the sidewalk and roadway, and it will be a similar setup to the VA-147 bridge you mentioned above, except no shoulder.




An ultimate solution would be to build the western part of the Pleasant Grove Pkwy - between US-17 and Military Hwy / US-17. Since a majority of the traffic in Deep Creek is thru traffic, and it has spiked 5,000 AADT after Dominion Blvd tolling began, this parkway would provide a bypass of Deep Creek and a straight shot to I-64 West (eastbound) towards Suffolk. Whether it's built as a freeway design as originally proposed, or the more recent arterial 45 mph design, it would significantly relieve congestion and could provide a high-rise bridge over the canal (about 65 ft would be needed if the US-17 fixed-span 4-lane bridge in North Carolina is any indication).

But this itself would cost an enormous amount of money, and if Chesapeake's previous projects are any indication, tolls would likely be involved, especially if it's a freeway design. Still would be a helpful connection, notably to the west for traffic coming from North Carolina though, which either has to traverse Deep Creek, or take the circuitous route to I-64 over the congested High Rise Bridge.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 04:29:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2019, 04:13:45 PM
How much vertical navigational clearance on the new bridge?
Drawbridge openings and very low clearance over the canal are a major part of the problem.
The vertical clearance will still be the current ~5 ft. There's no room to build a higher bridge. Similar situation with the Great Bridge bridge replacement a decade ago in Great Bridge, still low clearance.
The drawbridge openings aren't the problem here honestly. It's the road network, and the massive traffic chokepoint the crossing is.
That is surprising, as that is the Dismal Swamp Canal, connects to Albemarle Sound, I'll bet that plenty of boaters don't like that schedule.

Overridden by road traffic needs.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#167
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2019, 04:39:23 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 04:29:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2019, 04:13:45 PM
How much vertical navigational clearance on the new bridge?
Drawbridge openings and very low clearance over the canal are a major part of the problem.
The vertical clearance will still be the current ~5 ft. There's no room to build a higher bridge. Similar situation with the Great Bridge bridge replacement a decade ago in Great Bridge, still low clearance.
The drawbridge openings aren't the problem here honestly. It's the road network, and the massive traffic chokepoint the crossing is.
That is surprising, as that is the Dismal Swamp Canal, connects to Albemarle Sound, I'll bet that plenty of boaters don't like that schedule.

Overridden by road traffic needs.
Pretty sure it's been that way for decades though. It's set by the Coast Guard and the ACOE, not the City, though surely the city had input in that decision.

Annual boaters likely are aware of these types of things and consider it as much as possible.

The Great Bridge bridge is similar, though less restrictive since it does open on the hour every hour.

The city's Centerville Tpke bridge lifts on demand, except is restricted during peak hours. Since August, it's been non-existent as the bridge has been moved off to the side for the major rehabilitation project underway, with the roadway closed to traffic. That will be placed back and re-opened by February though. The city is currently undergoing a feasibility study to ultimately replace it with a 4-6 lane high rise bridge. That's expected to be completed next year.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2019, 04:39:23 PM
That is surprising, as that is the Dismal Swamp Canal, connects to Albemarle Sound, I'll bet that plenty of boaters don't like that schedule.
Overridden by road traffic needs.
Pretty sure it's been that way for decades though. It's set by the Coast Guard and the ACOE, not the City, though surely the city had input in that decision.
Annual boaters likely are aware of these types of things and consider it as much as possible.
Given traffic patterns, the bridge and US-17 was probably pretty congested in peak hours even 30 years ago.  So they probably restricted openings even back then, but that doesn't mean that boaters weren't being inconvenienced in a major way as seen from their perspective.

Where I grew up in Florida, we had a cruising sailboat, and the drawbridges over the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) at Melbourne and Eau Gallie needed to be raised to allow our passage.  The signal was 3 blasts from a Freon horn.  Sometimes we had wait because of traffic congestion.  But I got a really good perspective of how mariners view drawbridges.  These bridges have since been replaced with fixed high level bridges.

Sounds like the one at Deep Creek doesn't have enough vertical clearance for even a small powerboat that has no mast.

The ones in Florida were swingspan and had about 20 feet of vertical navigational clearance when the swingspan was closed.

More info here -- http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Florida_Trip.html
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#169
^
Since the original discussion related to the Nice bridge replacement not featuring a shoulder, it's interesting how that I-295 bridge in Jacksonville was built in 1989 without full left or right shoulders, and 6-lanes...


...but another bridge such as the arterial US-17 bridge in Savannah built in 1991 did feature a full right shoulder, such the design the Nice bridge should have. And as you mention in your article, US-17 still hasn't been widened to 4-lanes north of there and goes 6-miles into South Carolina before widening out to 4-lane divided highway. SCDOT currently has plans to finally expand the last remaining 2-lane section and twinning the Back River bridge with a new parallel one slated for construction in a couple of years.



Interesting article overall.

kevinb1994

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 07:54:58 PM
^
Since the original discussion related to the Nice bridge replacement not featuring a shoulder, it's interesting how that I-295 bridge in Jacksonville was built in 1989 without full left or right shoulders, and 6-lanes...


...but another bridge such as the arterial US-17 bridge in Savannah built in 1991 did feature a full right shoulder, such the design the Nice bridge should have. And as you mention in your article, US-17 still hasn't been widened to 4-lanes north of there and goes 6-miles into South Carolina before widening out to 4-lane divided highway. SCDOT currently has plans to finally expand the last remaining 2-lane section and twinning the Back River bridge with a new parallel one slated for construction in a couple of years.



Interesting article overall.
I've been over both of those bridges you mentioned, and wondered how the Dames Point Bridge was built with such a narrow width! Whenever there is an incident or traffic buildup going towards it on the I-295 East Beltway, we take the Buckman Bridge via the I-295 West Beltway instead. Maybe they'll address the problem once HOT lanes are extended in the near future.

Beltway

#171
Skanska-Led Team Aims for Early 2020 Start on $463M Maryland Bridge
Excerpts:

A joint venture of Skanska, Corman Kokosing Construction Co. and McLean Contracting Co. is moving toward an early 2020 construction start for a $463-million replacement for a 79-year-old bridge across the Potomac River, south of Washington, D.C.

The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) on Nov. 21 announced its board's approval of the design-build contract award for the Nice-Middleton Bridge to the Skanska-Corman-McLean team.  AECOM is the team's main design firm.

The authority said the joint venture submitted the low bid and also had the highest technical score among those that made proposals.

Like the current bridge, the replacement would extend for 1.9 miles and carry U.S. Route 301 from Charles County in southern Maryland to King George County in Virginia.

The new bridge will have four lanes, double the number on the existing bridge.  The lanes will be 12 ft wide and be accompanied by 2-ft-wide shoulders.
[vomit makes a sickening sound when it hits the floor]

It also will have prestressed concrete girders for much of its length and steel plate girders in the spans over the navigation channel in the Potomac.  The present Nice-Middleton bridge is a steel truss structure.

Construction is to begin in early 2020 and the bridge is expected to open in 2023, the MdTA said.


See the URL for the rest of the article.
https://www.enr.com/articles/48262-skanska-led-team-aims-for-early-2020-start-on-463m-maryland-bridge
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4


Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 10:27:21 PM
A sneak peak at Maryland's idea of a modern, standard 21st century bridge on a major route carrying interstate volumes.
The Francis Scott Key Bridge was opened in 1977, or 42 years ago.

That has quite a bit of age upon it.

Look at this one from 2008 --
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7930359,-77.0424633,3a,30y,96.65h,86.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfz3KUV5qgZeCbklGi4_gRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#174
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 10:34:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 10:27:21 PM
A sneak peak at Maryland's idea of a modern, standard 21st century bridge on a major route carrying interstate volumes.
The Francis Scott Key Bridge was opened in 1977, or 42 years ago.

That has quite a bit of age upon it.

Look at this one from 2008 --
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7930359,-77.0424633,3a,30y,96.65h,86.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfz3KUV5qgZeCbklGi4_gRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
My point is that Maryland is utilizing a bridge design from over 40 years ago on a modern 21st century bridge on a major route carrying interstate volumes over a major river.

That Street View imagery of the Francis Scott Key Bridge I provided is exactly what the Nice Bridge replacement will look like from a driver view, except it will obviously have a brand new deck, railing, etc. Cross section wise, no different.

Here could be a view very similar to approaching the Virginia landing in 2023 on Maryland's modern, "standard" 21st century bridge. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2207197,-76.5234082,3a,43.1y,48.22h,81.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBE1_2yHSHOo3bxIfavnF8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

IMO, even 4 foot shoulders would have been more of an improvement over 2 foot. Even minimal interstate standards allow this. Granted, it's not an interstate highway route, but it should at least have a cross section of an interstate highway.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.