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

[seicer]

And no provisions for pedestrians or cyclists on a dedicated path. I get cost-cutting, but eliminating the provisions that helped define the project in the first place, and making the shoulders extremely narrow with no possibility of widening is just asinine.

[Beltway]

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.

Nothing new to me, I have complained about it multiple times.

I suppose that the rationale may have been that it is not an Interstate highway or freeway, but a rural arterial highway.  Even so, it should have full shoulders even as an arterial.

[Beltway]

And no provisions for pedestrians or cyclists on a dedicated path. I get cost-cutting, but eliminating the provisions that helped define the project in the first place, and making the shoulders extremely narrow with no possibility of widening is just asinine.

No practical engineering way to add lanes to a bridge like that with or without shoulders, they would build a parallel span.  Unless the shoulders were converted to a lane, and then you have a bridge without shoulders.

Granted that design would accommodate three 12-foot lanes and full shoulders on each side.

[sprjus4]

Granted that design would accommodate three 12-foot lanes and full shoulders on each side.

With about 58 foot of roadway, that could indeed accommodate three 12 foot lanes and 11 foot left and right shoulders.

For a parallel span, a proper design would be another bridge with the same cross sections, along with a properly completed multi-use path.

I could only see a second parallel span being constructed though if the bridge component of US-301 was incorporated into an Eastern Bypass highway, and at this rate, the chances of that getting built are slim to none.

[Beltway]

I could only see a second parallel span being constructed though if the bridge component of US-301 was incorporated into an Eastern Bypass highway, and at this rate, the chances of that getting built are slim to none.

That's a shame.

Maryland did a really good job of building a system of highways, bridges and tunnels in the Baltimore area, granted partly thru heavy use of permanent tolling.

In the Washington area, they have really fallen short.

[DJStephens]

And no provisions for pedestrians or cyclists on a dedicated path. I get cost-cutting, but eliminating the provisions that helped define the project in the first place, and making the shoulders extremely narrow with no possibility of widening is just asinine.

Guessing this is the decision making coming from Pete rahn, the Maryland DOT chief.  His legacy in New Mexico was simply horrible.   Cost cutting, design regression, and poor construction quality on most jobs.   

[Beltway]

And no provisions for pedestrians or cyclists on a dedicated path. I get cost-cutting, but eliminating the provisions that helped define the project in the first place, and making the shoulders extremely narrow with no possibility of widening is just asinine.

Guessing this is the decision making coming from Pete rahn, the Maryland DOT chief.  His legacy in New Mexico was simply horrible.   Cost cutting, design regression, and poor construction quality on most jobs.   

The sad thing is, that given the low bid of $463 million, they should easily have been able to add the full shoulders and bike/ped path, and still be well within the the $762 million estimate of Nov. 2016.

[sprjus4]

And no provisions for pedestrians or cyclists on a dedicated path. I get cost-cutting, but eliminating the provisions that helped define the project in the first place, and making the shoulders extremely narrow with no possibility of widening is just asinine.

Guessing this is the decision making coming from Pete rahn, the Maryland DOT chief.  His legacy in New Mexico was simply horrible.   Cost cutting, design regression, and poor construction quality on most jobs.   

The sad thing is, that given the low bid of $463 million, they should easily have been able to add the full shoulders and bike/ped path, and still be well within the the $762 million estimate of Nov. 2016.

Maybe Maryland thinks those minor components would add over $300 million?

[Beltway]

The sad thing is, that given the low bid of $463 million, they should easily have been able to add the full shoulders and bike/ped path, and still be well within the the $762 million estimate of Nov. 2016.

Maybe Maryland thinks those minor components would add over $300 million?

I would certainly hope not, although they are not 'minor'. 

Maybe $100 to $120 million?

[jeffandnicole]

And no provisions for pedestrians or cyclists on a dedicated path. I get cost-cutting, but eliminating the provisions that helped define the project in the first place, and making the shoulders extremely narrow with no possibility of widening is just asinine.

Guessing this is the decision making coming from Pete rahn, the Maryland DOT chief.  His legacy in New Mexico was simply horrible.   Cost cutting, design regression, and poor construction quality on most jobs.   

The sad thing is, that given the low bid of $463 million, they should easily have been able to add the full shoulders and bike/ped path, and still be well within the the $762 million estimate of Nov. 2016.

Back to that again, eh?

[Beltway]

The sad thing is, that given the low bid of $463 million, they should easily have been able to add the full shoulders and bike/ped path, and still be well within the the $762 million estimate of Nov. 2016.

Back to that again, eh?

Based on my financial background, and highway engineering background, it really does kind of jump right out.

Plus the MDTA news release said there was a bid option to add a separated bicycle/pedestrian path to the new structure, and that it would cost $64 million, so it was both designed and costed, so we know exactly what would be involved in that element.

[cpzilliacus]

Opinion: Maryland's 100-year transportation decision

Maryland is planning on a multigenerational bridge project to last far into the next century. This is the proposed replacement for the Nice-Middleton two-lane bridge over the Potomac River connecting Charles County with King George County, Va. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) expressed his early support for the construction of a new four-lane bridge that includes a barrier-separated path for hikers and cyclists. The obsolete Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge, constructed in 1938, was designed at a time when cyclists and hikers were in no planner's mind. The proposed Nice-Middleton Bridge will be with us for another 100 years, so it is imperative that it be done right.

[sprjus4]

Opinion: Maryland's 100-year transportation decision

Maryland is planning on a multigenerational bridge project to last far into the next century. This is the proposed replacement for the Nice-Middleton two-lane bridge over the Potomac River connecting Charles County with King George County, Va. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) expressed his early support for the construction of a new four-lane bridge that includes a barrier-separated path for hikers and cyclists. The obsolete Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge, constructed in 1938, was designed at a time when cyclists and hikers were in no planner's mind. The proposed Nice-Middleton Bridge will be with us for another 100 years, so it is imperative that it be done right.

Agreed completely, and a full 10-12 foot right shoulder needs to be added to the design as well. Ideally, a minimum of a 4 foot left shoulder, preferably 10-12 foot left shoulder should also be added, but that's not nearly as important as having at least a full right shoulder, and a multi-use trail that's barrier separated.

[Beltway]

Agreed completely, and a full 10-12 foot right shoulder needs to be added to the design as well. Ideally, a minimum of a 4 foot left shoulder, preferably 10-12 foot left shoulder should also be added, but that's not nearly as important as having at least a full right shoulder, and a multi-use trail that's barrier separated.

A 4-foot left shoulder is Interstate-standard on a 2-lane roadway.

The 10-foot right shoulder would be as well.

[sprjus4]

Agreed completely, and a full 10-12 foot right shoulder needs to be added to the design as well. Ideally, a minimum of a 4 foot left shoulder, preferably 10-12 foot left shoulder should also be added, but that's not nearly as important as having at least a full right shoulder, and a multi-use trail that's barrier separated.

A 4-foot left shoulder is Interstate-standard on a 2-lane roadway.

The 10-foot right shoulder would be as well.

A 4-foot left and 4-foot right shoulder would be interstate standard, as reduced design standards are permitted over long bridges. Doesn't mean it's preferred.

VDOT has been providing up to 14 foot shoulders on new construction projects such as the new High Rise Bridge, and is on the new HRBT proposal.

[Beltway]

A 4-foot left shoulder is Interstate-standard on a 2-lane roadway.
The 10-foot right shoulder would be as well.

A 4-foot left and 4-foot right shoulder would be interstate standard, as reduced design standards are permitted over long bridges.

No it is not.

[sprjus4]

A 4-foot left shoulder is Interstate-standard on a 2-lane roadway.
The 10-foot right shoulder would be as well.

A 4-foot left and 4-foot right shoulder would be interstate standard, as reduced design standards are permitted over long bridges.

No it is not.

Yes it is.

A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System - May 2016

For new bridge construction -

Bridges and Other Structures - Cross Section
The width of bridges less than or equal to 200 ft in length shall not be less than the full paved width of the approach roadway, including shoulders. The bridge width is measured between the bridge railing, parapet, or barrier. Long bridges, defined by bridges having an overall length in excess of 200 ft, may have a lesser width and should be analyzed individually. On long bridges, a reduced shoulder width of 4 ft may be used on both the left and the right sides.

For existing bridges being incorporated into the interstate highway system -

Bridges and Other Structures - Existing Bridges to Remain in Place
Mainline bridges on the Interstate system and bridges on routes to be incorporated into the system may remain in place if, as a minimum, they meet all of the following criteria:

• For bridges less than or equal to 200 ft in length, the bridge cross section consists of at least 12 ft lanes, 10 ft shoulder on the right, and 3.5 ft shoulder on the left;
• For long bridges, shoulder width on both the left and right is at least 3.5 ft measured from the edge of the nearest travel lane; and
• Bridge railing meets or will be upgraded to current standards.

Modern day, interstate highways have been incorporated into the system that traverse long bridges with reduced width, as it is permitted under interstate standards. If it was substandard, FHWA would not permit it or require a design exception.

[Beltway]

<<< Long bridges, defined by bridges having an overall length in excess of 200 ft >>>

Who was the "engineer" who wrote a statement like that?  Or was it just a paper-pusher with no engineering credentials"

[sprjus4]

<<< Long bridges, defined by bridges having an overall length in excess of 200 ft >>>

Who was the "engineer" who wrote a statement like that?  Or was it just a paper-pusher with no engineering credentials"

I don't know, but it was also in the 2005 edition, so for the past at least 14 years, bridges with 4 foot left and 4 foot right shoulders do meet interstate standards.

While you may disagree, that's fine, but that's straightforward the guidelines if a bridge with such cross section was incorporated into the system. I-295 around Fayetteville, NC was recently approved to be incorporated into the system by the FHWA and it has two bridges over 200 feet in length that have 4 foot right and 4 foot left shoulders. The rest of the interstate has a full cross section and carries over all other bridges. There's other examples around the country on a case-by-case basis that have had similar treatment in the past decade or two. There's not any standard requiring the use of full shoulders, it's simply just a standard procedure on new construction.

I'm not saying either that bridges should be encouraged to be built reduced width. But it shouldn't be the only thing preventing an entire route to be designated as an interstate highway, such as the case with I-295.

[Beltway]

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.

There were other bidders --

The other contenders, in order of MdTA's overall rankings, along with their bids were: Archer Western, $498.4 million; a Granite-Parsons-Middlesex team, $479.1 million; and a Wagman-Trumbull-Weeks team, $605.6 million.

These huge contracts nowadays are usually a consortium of 3 or more contractors.

[Alps]

<<< Long bridges, defined by bridges having an overall length in excess of 200 ft >>>

Who was the "engineer" who wrote a statement like that?  Or was it just a paper-pusher with no engineering credentials"

Yeah, I've had issues with that, as many overpasses are longer than that. And I also agree that it should not be an exception anymore. We know better. I'm especially concerned with narrow shoulders on a bridge with Nice's profile. If it's a relatively straight and flat bridge, fine, you could coast for a bit if your engine dies for example, but if you're on an upgrade or downgrade, you really need a place to stop. I wish someone from MdSHA would read this thread.

[Beltway]

<<< Long bridges, defined by bridges having an overall length in excess of 200 ft >>>
Who was the "engineer" who wrote a statement like that?  Or was it just a paper-pusher with no engineering credentials"

Yeah, I've had issues with that, as many overpasses are longer than that. And I also agree that it should not be an exception anymore. We know better. I'm especially concerned with narrow shoulders on a bridge with Nice's profile. If it's a relatively straight and flat bridge, fine, you could coast for a bit if your engine dies for example, but if you're on an upgrade or downgrade, you really need a place to stop. I wish someone from MdSHA would read this thread.

Indeed, calling a 201 foot length bridge a "long bridge."

One mile (5,280 feet) would be my threshold for a "long bridge," and even then there are plenty much longer than that that have full shoulders.

[vdeane]

I would probably set the "long bridge" threshold at half a mile, but in any case, I'd argue that the longer the bridge, shoulders only become more necessary, not less.

If I had my way, the long bridge exemption would only be for adding interstates on existing roads with older bridges, and not allowed for new construction.

(personal opinion)

[cpzilliacus]

I would probably set the "long bridge" threshold at half a mile, but in any case, I'd argue that the longer the bridge, shoulders only become more necessary, not less.

If I had my way, the long bridge exemption would only be for adding interstates on existing roads with older bridges, and not allowed for new construction.

(personal opinion)

I very much agree with your personal opinion.  Long bridges with no shoulders are terribly vulnerable to long queues even for minor incidents like disabled vehicles and fender benders.

[Beltway]

I would probably set the "long bridge" threshold at half a mile, but in any case, I'd argue that the longer the bridge, shoulders only become more necessary, not less.  If I had my way, the long bridge exemption would only be for adding interstates on existing roads with older bridges, and not allowed for new construction.  (personal opinion)

I very much agree with your personal opinion.  Long bridges with no shoulders are terribly vulnerable to long queues even for minor incidents like disabled vehicles and fender benders.

I would agree with the 0.5 mile or 2,640 foot length threshold.

Even a short bridge of less than 200 feet still can be a problem if there is not a full shoulder.

• A vehicle slowing down onto the shoulder reaches the narrow bridge and then gets forced back onto the roadway, or else slams into the guardrail.
  
• A vehicle speeding up on the shoulder reaches the narrow bridge and then gets forced into the roadway at too low a speed, or else slams into the guardrail.

The I-664 bridge-tunnel has 7.7 miles of bridges and all have full 10-foot right shoulders, and that was opened in 1992.