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

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

Previous topic - Next topic

1995hoo

Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2017, 01:38:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 03, 2017, 12:33:31 PM
District of Columbia and City of Alexandria have recently  raised concerns that the lower height would make it impossible for many tall ships to call on the two cities. 

A quick search didn't find a comprehensive list of tall ships, but I found enough to see that current tall ships have heights ranging from 100 feet to 190 feet, plenty are over 135 feet.

Thanks. I stand corrected. I had no idea they were that tall. No doubt pictures of them being dwarfed by the raised bascule spans on the new Wilson Bridge probably misled me.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.


Beltway

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 03, 2017, 02:09:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2017, 01:38:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 03, 2017, 12:33:31 PM
District of Columbia and City of Alexandria have recently  raised concerns that the lower height would make it impossible for many tall ships to call on the two cities. 
A quick search didn't find a comprehensive list of tall ships, but I found enough to see that current tall ships have heights ranging from 100 feet to 190 feet, plenty are over 135 feet.
Thanks. I stand corrected. I had no idea they were that tall. No doubt pictures of them being dwarfed by the raised bascule spans on the new Wilson Bridge probably misled me.

Neither did I, I had thought that 110 feet would cover all of them.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2017, 01:38:48 PM
A quick search didn't find a comprehensive list of tall ships, but I found enough to see that current tall ships have heights ranging from 100 feet to 190 feet, plenty are over 135 feet.

If they are over 135 feet, then the current HWN structure serves as a barrier.   Should the new HWN be lower?  Maryland seems to think so, but I believe the final decision is vested in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with input from the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard - and presumably governments upstream from the proposed bridge have input to that process.
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.

froggie

IIRC, the Coast Guard (not the ACoE) has final approval over bridge heights given their authority regarding navigation.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2017, 08:01:24 AM
IIRC, the Coast Guard (not the ACoE) has final approval over bridge heights given their authority regarding navigation.

Ideally, all federal regulation of matters involving Waters of the United States would be vested in one federal agency, but that will likely never happen.

The reason I assumed Corps of Engineers was that in various controversies involving the late Robert Moses and his TBTA bridge projects, in Caro's Power Broker Moses biography, there is specific mention of the War Department (read: Corps of Engineers but probably President (and former New York Governor) Franklin D. Roosevelt) vetoing the proposal by Moses for a big bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn (where the Hugh L. Carey (Brooklyn Battery) Tunnel now runs).
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.

1995hoo

The stated reason for the feds blocking the Battery Bridge project was that the Brooklyn Navy Yard was upriver from the proposed location such that the bridge could be a navigational hazard, although of course that overlooked that the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges already existed downstream from the Navy Yard and the Williamsburg, 59 Street, and Triboro Bridges already existed upstream.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 05, 2017, 12:33:49 PM
The stated reason for the feds blocking the Battery Bridge project was that the Brooklyn Navy Yard was upriver from the proposed location such that the bridge could be a navigational hazard, although of course that overlooked that the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges already existed downstream from the Navy Yard and the Williamsburg, 59 Street, and Triboro Bridges already existed upstream.

Absolutely correct.  But curiously, at least then, the Navy could not veto the bridge project "on its own" (presumably because the Navy did not have the legal authority) but had to get help from the War Department, which did have that power.

Caro implied that there was significant bad blood between Robert Moses and Franklin Roosevelt that dated back to Roosevelt's days as governor of New York. According to Caro, Roosevelt wanted the Taconic State Parkway constructed in part because it would improve road access to his place in New Hyde Park, N.Y., but Moses was opposed to the (long) route that now runs all the way from the I-90 N.Y. Thruway Berkshire Spur to Westchester County.  According to Caro, that bad blood came back to kill the proposal to build the bridge from the southern tip of Manhattan to Brooklyn, and the veto was ordered by FDR himself.
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

#82
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2017, 07:36:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2017, 01:38:48 PM
A quick search didn't find a comprehensive list of tall ships, but I found enough to see that current tall ships have heights ranging from 100 feet to 190 feet, plenty are over 135 feet.
If they are over 135 feet, then the current HWN structure serves as a barrier.   Should the new HWN be lower?  Maryland seems to think so, but I believe the final decision is vested in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with input from the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard - and presumably governments upstream from the proposed bridge have input to that process.

I attended the Commonwealth Transportation Board workshop meeting in Richmond today, and one of the agenda items is authorizing the $14.5 million that VDOT will give to MDTA to fund the improvements to the Virginia approach and to giving authorization to MDTA to administer the portions of the project that are in Virginia.  The CTB has not yet provided the authorization.

"Action on Delegation of Authority for Commissioner of Highways to Enter into and Execute Agreements with the Maryland Transportation Authority and Other Entities Relating to the Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge Improvement Project."

Discussion occurred about the reduction in vertical navigational clearance.  This point was made, and they don't yet have the answer -- given that Maryland owns the river and the bridge and are the party that will negotiate an agreement with the federal government concerning vertical navigational clearance, did they consult with Virginia as to whether they may have knowledge of any proposed industrial developments in Virginia that might be impacted by the reduction in vertical navigational clearance?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

froggie

They wouldn't necessarily need to consult with Virginia.  MdTA would be consulting with the Coast Guard which ultimately sets navigational requirements and clearances.  And if Virginia was proposing such industrial developments that would require a certain ship size, it'd be up to Virginia to notify the Coast Guard.

Beltway

#84
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2017, 07:34:08 PM
They wouldn't necessarily need to consult with Virginia.  MdTA would be consulting with the Coast Guard which ultimately sets navigational requirements and clearances.  And if Virginia was proposing such industrial developments that would require a certain ship size, it'd be up to Virginia to notify the Coast Guard.

The document posted earlier in the thread is comprehensive but doesn't go into any detail about the "Stakeholder Coordination" that led to the reduced clearances.
http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/Capital_Projects/Potomac_River_Bridge_Project/Documents/Nice_Bridge_Presentation_.pdf

It did say this, but such an inquiry might not necessarily have reached all industrial concerns --
U.S. Coast Guard: No objectionable comments received on USCG "Notice to Mariners" .  USCG verbally indicated that approval is forthcoming on the "Request for Preliminary Determination" .

I would hope that the three jurisdictions (MD, DC, VA) have been working together on this design.  At the CTB meeting it didn't sound like VA had been involved much yet, but it certainly will be fully involved soon, and before they give authorization to build the approaches.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 07:58:18 PM
I would hope that the three jurisdictions (MD, DC, VA) have been working together on this design.  At the CTB meeting it didn't sound like VA had been involved much yet, but it certainly will be fully involved soon, and before they give authorization to build the approaches.

I head representatives of the City of Alexandria express unhappiness with the lower bridge height because it could deter tall ships from being able to reach Old Town.
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 December 06, 2017, 12:46:19 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 07:58:18 PM
I would hope that the three jurisdictions (MD, DC, VA) have been working together on this design.  At the CTB meeting it didn't sound like VA had been involved much yet, but it certainly will be fully involved soon, and before they give authorization to build the approaches.
I head representatives of the City of Alexandria express unhappiness with the lower bridge height because it could deter tall ships from being able to reach Old Town.

But as posted earlier many tall ships are taller than the current 135 feet clearance.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2017, 07:19:35 AM
But as posted earlier many tall ships are taller than the current 135 feet clearance.

I do not know what or how the tall ships make it past the existing HWN, but I know that they have done so, because I have seen them in the Potomac north of the Wilson Bridge (I think this might have been before the  Wilson  was replaced, but no matter, the HWN has stood where it is since before it opened to traffic in 1940).
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 December 06, 2017, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2017, 07:19:35 AM
But as posted earlier many tall ships are taller than the current 135 feet clearance.
I do not know what or how the tall ships make it past the existing HWN, but I know that they have done so, because I have seen them in the Potomac north of the Wilson Bridge (I think this might have been before the  Wilson  was replaced, but no matter, the HWN has stood where it is since before it opened to traffic in 1940).

I would presume that they make the trip by tow and not by sail, so no sails would be deployed on the masts.  The masts could be partly or fully taken down if there was sufficient need or desire to pass under an obstacle such as a bridge or power lines.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

froggie

Some tall ships and ship replicas (such as the French Hermione or the Bounty before she sank during Sandy) have auxiliary engines installed so that they can move if needed while not under sail.  Such ships would not need to be towed.

Beltway

Quote from: froggie on December 06, 2017, 03:52:53 PM
Some tall ships and ship replicas (such as the French Hermione or the Bounty before she sank during Sandy) have auxiliary engines installed so that they can move if needed while not under sail.  Such ships would not need to be towed.

I had thought of that, that at least in the case of replicas, they would be modern constructions that could easily have been built with a small diesel engine for inboard power for docking and for times when there is insufficient winds.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

cpzilliacus

Quote from: froggie on December 06, 2017, 03:52:53 PM
Some tall ships and ship replicas (such as the French Hermione or the Bounty before she sank during Sandy) have auxiliary engines installed so that they can move if needed while not under sail.  Such ships would not need to be towed.

The USCGC Eagle (WIX-327) has visited.  Her masts are apparently too high to pass under the HWN, so I suppose the  Coast Guard has a way of dealing with that (and yes, she does have a Diesel engine for propulsion when desired).

She was in Alexandria earlier this year (details).
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 December 07, 2017, 06:58:28 AM
The USCGC Eagle (WIX-327) has visited.  Her masts are apparently too high to pass under the HWN, so I suppose the  Coast Guard has a way of dealing with that (and yes, she does have a Diesel engine for propulsion when desired).
She was in Alexandria earlier this year (details).

http://www.cga.edu/eagle.aspx?id=689
Height of mainmast - 147.3 feet
Height of foremast - 147.3 feet
Height of mizzenmast - 132.0 feet

Obviously if it got to Alexandria the masts must be at least partly retractable.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Beltway

Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 07:22:42 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 07, 2017, 06:58:28 AM
The USCGC Eagle (WIX-327) has visited.  Her masts are apparently too high to pass under the HWN, so I suppose the  Coast Guard has a way of dealing with that (and yes, she does have a Diesel engine for propulsion when desired).
She was in Alexandria earlier this year (details).
http://www.cga.edu/eagle.aspx?id=689
Height of mainmast - 147.3 feet
Height of foremast - 147.3 feet
Height of mizzenmast - 132.0 feet
Obviously if it got to Alexandria the masts must be at least partly retractable.

Now they are proposing 135 feet of vertical navigational clearance, and in order to save costs they are proposing 2-foot shoulders rather than the 10-foot right shoulders previously proposed.

Slide show -- http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/Capital_Projects/NewNiceBridgeProject/Home

There is a button for a comment page, I submitted a comment, please do likewise.

"Great new bridge project that I support, with 4 lanes and 135 feet of vertical navigational clearance. I support all elements except -- in order to save costs you are proposing 2-foot shoulders rather than the 10-foot right shoulders previously proposed.  You cited the Key and Hatem bridges as similar examples, but these are 50+ year old designs.  Today's requirements for a 4-lane high speed highway bridge should include 10-foot right shoulders for safety and capacity reasons.  Please include 10-foot right shoulders."
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

jwolfer

Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2018, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 07:22:42 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 07, 2017, 06:58:28 AM
The USCGC Eagle (WIX-327) has visited.  Her masts are apparently too high to pass under the HWN, so I suppose the  Coast Guard has a way of dealing with that (and yes, she does have a Diesel engine for propulsion when desired).
She was in Alexandria earlier this year (details).
http://www.cga.edu/eagle.aspx?id=689
Height of mainmast - 147.3 feet
Height of foremast - 147.3 feet
Height of mizzenmast - 132.0 feet
Obviously if it got to Alexandria the masts must be at least partly retractable.

Now they are proposing 135 feet of vertical navigational clearance, and in order to save costs they are proposing 2-foot shoulders rather than the 10-foot right shoulders previously proposed.

Slide show -- http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/Capital_Projects/NewNiceBridgeProject/Home

There is a button for a comment page, I submitted a comment, please do likewise.

"Great new bridge project that I support, with 4 lanes and 135 feet of vertical navigational clearance. I support all elements except -- in order to save costs you are proposing 2-foot shoulders rather than the 10-foot right shoulders previously proposed.  You cited the Key and Hatem bridges as similar examples, but these are 50+ year old designs.  Today's requirements for a 4-lane high speed highway bridge should include 10-foot right shoulders for safety and capacity reasons.  Please include 10-foot right shoulders."
And there is a toll on the bridge, it has been making money since built and will continue making money.



Z981


Beltway

Quote from: jwolfer on February 10, 2018, 11:32:43 AM
And there is a toll on the bridge, it has been making money since built and will continue making money.

Increasing from 2 lanes to 4 lanes will allow the traffic to grow considerably, thus increasing the toll revenues.

I see that MDTA will also instituted all-electronic tolling (AET) primarily thru E-ZPass and secondarily thru video license plate reading on the new bridge.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2018, 12:08:48 AM
There is a button for a comment page, I submitted a comment, please do likewise.

"Great new bridge project that I support, with 4 lanes and 135 feet of vertical navigational clearance. I support all elements except -- in order to save costs you are proposing 2-foot shoulders rather than the 10-foot right shoulders previously proposed.  You cited the Key and Hatem bridges as similar examples, but these are 50+ year old designs.  Today's requirements for a 4-lane high speed highway bridge should include 10-foot right shoulders for safety and capacity reasons.  Please include 10-foot right shoulders."

I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to submit a comment, but I agree with you.   There should be shoulders there for the benefit of motorized traffic, and to allow bikes to cross without needing to be shuttled (the next bridge upstream is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which does have a good bike and pedestrian trail adjacent).   But that's a long distance upstream from the site of the HWN.
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 February 11, 2018, 12:58:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2018, 12:08:48 AM
There is a button for a comment page, I submitted a comment, please do likewise.
"Great new bridge project that I support, with 4 lanes and 135 feet of vertical navigational clearance. I support all elements except -- in order to save costs you are proposing 2-foot shoulders rather than the 10-foot right shoulders previously proposed.  You cited the Key and Hatem bridges as similar examples, but these are 50+ year old designs.  Today's requirements for a 4-lane high speed highway bridge should include 10-foot right shoulders for safety and capacity reasons.  Please include 10-foot right shoulders."
I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to submit a comment, but I agree with you.   There should be shoulders there for the benefit of motorized traffic, and to allow bikes to cross without needing to be shuttled (the next bridge upstream is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which does have a good bike and pedestrian trail adjacent).   But that's a long distance upstream from the site of the HWN.

I submitted written comments on VDOT projects when I worked for VDOT, but I stopped short of ever giving a spoken comment at a public hearing.  As a citizen I felt the right to submit written comments.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

cpzilliacus

The MDTA is holding two pre-bid conferences for the HWN replacement project, one in Waldorf, Charles County, Maryland (Wednesday, June 6, 2018) and one in Dahlgren, King George County, Virginia (Tuesday, June 12, 2018).

Details can be viewed on the EMaryland Marketplace site here.

If the link above does not work visit the project's Web site here (has much of the same information as the EMaryland Marketplace site). 
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.

skluth

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2017, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 05, 2017, 12:33:49 PM
The stated reason for the feds blocking the Battery Bridge project was that the Brooklyn Navy Yard was upriver from the proposed location such that the bridge could be a navigational hazard, although of course that overlooked that the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges already existed downstream from the Navy Yard and the Williamsburg, 59 Street, and Triboro Bridges already existed upstream.

Absolutely correct.  But curiously, at least then, the Navy could not veto the bridge project "on its own" (presumably because the Navy did not have the legal authority) but had to get help from the War Department, which did have that power.

Caro implied that there was significant bad blood between Robert Moses and Franklin Roosevelt that dated back to Roosevelt's days as governor of New York. According to Caro, Roosevelt wanted the Taconic State Parkway constructed in part because it would improve road access to his place in New Hyde Park, N.Y., but Moses was opposed to the (long) route that now runs all the way from the I-90 N.Y. Thruway Berkshire Spur to Westchester County.  According to Caro, that bad blood came back to kill the proposal to build the bridge from the southern tip of Manhattan to Brooklyn, and the veto was ordered by FDR himself.

It's more than a navigation hazard. The Navy doesn't allow any bridges in Hampton Roads because a bridge can be bombed which would trap the fleet in Norfolk and prevent access to the Norfolk Navy Yard in Portsmouth. No bridges can be built between the Navy Yard, the shipyard in Newport News, and the Atlantic. http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Bridge_Tunnels_VA.html



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.