Cape May-Lewes Ferry tagged as US-9 on Google

[Duke87]

The Rocky Hill ferry (CT 160) is closed for the season?

Actually, I was referring to the state's plan in the summer of 2011 to end service on both ferries permanently as a way to save money from the budget. It turns out, after massive outcry, the state backpedaled on this decision and ferry service never actually stopped. Though I was not aware this 11th hour save had occurred at the time I wrote the post you quoted.

The Rocky Hill Ferry is so lightly used as to be functionally speaking unnecessary. And I'd even argue it ought to be discontinued permanently if not for the fact that it has been operating since 1655 and thus is the oldest continually operating ferry service in the United States. That distinction makes it worth preserving for historical reasons.

[DeaconG]

Part of the reason, as Jeff suggests, is that the traffic volumes would not support such a bridge or bridge/tunnel.  This is also related to the road network.  The CBBT works because it would be a hellacious detour around to the Bay Bridge and backtrack in order to reach over half of the Delmarva.  It's also a significant mileage and time savings for Hampton Roads travelers who are heading to Wilmington or points north.  During the several years I was stationed in Norfolk, I calculated the savings at 80 miles and 45 minutes, and that was BEFORE factoring I-64/I-95/DC/Baltimore traffic delays.

The savings for North Jersey travelers of a Cape May-Lewes fixed span are much less...I'm estimating about a 20 mile savings over taking DE 1/Del Mem Bridge/NJ Turnpike.  The savings for trucks would be basically nil, as they're forced off the Parkway at Exit 105.

But a bigger reason for no bridge is physical/bathymetric in nature, and the reason why comparisons to the CBBT don't work well.  The CBBT was workable because, except at the channels, most of the water is 40ft or less in depth.  The problem with a Cape May-Lewes crossing is that you have about a 2.5 mile swath where the water is 60ft or deeper, reaching as much as 130ft in a few spots.  The shallowest deep spot I can find in potential bridge or tunnel area is still close to 100ft.  What this means is you have a significant length of potential bridge that would have to have very deep bridge piers, and a tunnel that would have to reach twice as deep as the CBBT.  Both of these would seriously skyrocket the cost of a bridge/tunnel...to the point where it's just not cost-effective.

I'm glad you mentioned the physical aspect, I wasn't completely sure of what the depth of Delaware Bay was at that particular place and I didn't want to go around trying to find topo maps of it.  Yes, that would probably kill it (not that it isn't attainable, but the engineering and construction costs would far outweigh the utility unless you were doing it as a 'national pride' project and even then in our age of 'funny money' probably wouldn't fly).

[Alps]

Part of the reason, as Jeff suggests, is that the traffic volumes would not support such a bridge or bridge/tunnel.  This is also related to the road network.  The CBBT works because it would be a hellacious detour around to the Bay Bridge and backtrack in order to reach over half of the Delmarva.  It's also a significant mileage and time savings for Hampton Roads travelers who are heading to Wilmington or points north.  During the several years I was stationed in Norfolk, I calculated the savings at 80 miles and 45 minutes, and that was BEFORE factoring I-64/I-95/DC/Baltimore traffic delays.

The savings for North Jersey travelers of a Cape May-Lewes fixed span are much less...I'm estimating about a 20 mile savings over taking DE 1/Del Mem Bridge/NJ Turnpike.  The savings for trucks would be basically nil, as they're forced off the Parkway at Exit 105.

But a bigger reason for no bridge is physical/bathymetric in nature, and the reason why comparisons to the CBBT don't work well.  The CBBT was workable because, except at the channels, most of the water is 40ft or less in depth.  The problem with a Cape May-Lewes crossing is that you have about a 2.5 mile swath where the water is 60ft or deeper, reaching as much as 130ft in a few spots.  The shallowest deep spot I can find in potential bridge or tunnel area is still close to 100ft.  What this means is you have a significant length of potential bridge that would have to have very deep bridge piers, and a tunnel that would have to reach twice as deep as the CBBT.  Both of these would seriously skyrocket the cost of a bridge/tunnel...to the point where it's just not cost-effective.

Tunnel under the shallow parts, and then build a floating bridge on the deep parts?

[Kacie Jane]

Right, but the ferry parking lot and the boat aren't officially US-9.  The designation ends short of the ferry on both sides.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN_page_001_to_054.pdf shows no gap.

The mileage to the state line isn't included in any of the figures in that document or in real life.  SLD shows the route ending at the water's edge with no reference to a ferry being available.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000009__-.pdf

Because that's where milepost 0 is.  But that shouldn't be an indication that the ferry isn't part of US 9.  That's just where the pavement starts and NJDOT maintenance starts, so that's where the zero point is.

Washington State Ferries are unambiguously part of their respective numbered routes, but the water mileage isn't included in the highway's mileposts.

[Duke87]

Tunnel under the shallow parts, and then build a floating bridge on the deep parts?

Presumably at least one of the deep parts is a shipping lane. Would it be feasible to design a floating bridge with enough clearance to allow post-panamax ships under?

Also, with the aforementioned national security concern, you'd more likely see the opposite - tunnel under the shipping lanes, bridge over the shallower sections.



Meanwhile, I'm not an expert on floating bridges, but it does occur to me that the most famous example (WA 520) crosses a relatively small and highly sheltered body of water. I imagine Delaware Bay regularly sees much larger waves than Lake Washington ever does. This certainly would have implications for the stability of a floating structure.

[vdeane]

Another reason this can't be compared to the CBBT: the CBBT was built back when building infrastructure was easy.  It would be much less likely to be built today.  Also note that when the bridge parts were widened, the tunnel parts were not.

[jeffandnicole]

Part of the reason, as Jeff suggests, is that the traffic volumes would not support such a bridge or bridge/tunnel.  This is also related to the road network.  The CBBT works because it would be a hellacious detour around to the Bay Bridge and backtrack in order to reach over half of the Delmarva.  It's also a significant mileage and time savings for Hampton Roads travelers who are heading to Wilmington or points north.  During the several years I was stationed in Norfolk, I calculated the savings at 80 miles and 45 minutes, and that was BEFORE factoring I-64/I-95/DC/Baltimore traffic delays.

The savings for North Jersey travelers of a Cape May-Lewes fixed span are much less...I'm estimating about a 20 mile savings over taking DE 1/Del Mem Bridge/NJ Turnpike.  The savings for trucks would be basically nil, as they're forced off the Parkway at Exit 105.

But a bigger reason for no bridge is physical/bathymetric in nature, and the reason why comparisons to the CBBT don't work well.  The CBBT was workable because, except at the channels, most of the water is 40ft or less in depth.  The problem with a Cape May-Lewes crossing is that you have about a 2.5 mile swath where the water is 60ft or deeper, reaching as much as 130ft in a few spots.  The shallowest deep spot I can find in potential bridge or tunnel area is still close to 100ft.  What this means is you have a significant length of potential bridge that would have to have very deep bridge piers, and a tunnel that would have to reach twice as deep as the CBBT.  Both of these would seriously skyrocket the cost of a bridge/tunnel...to the point where it's just not cost-effective.

Tunnel under the shallow parts, and then build a floating bridge on the deep parts?

It's in tidal waters, so a floating bridge would be subjected to tides and waves, which can reach several feet high on calm days.

Another reason this can't be compared to the CBBT: the CBBT was built back when building infrastructure was easy.  It would be much less likely to be built today.  Also note that when the bridge parts were widened, the tunnel parts were not.

They are looking into adding the additional tunnels because traffic and safety demands warrant it. Those two tunnels will probably cost more than what was spent on the entire original bridge/tunnel structure.

[Alps]

Tunnel under the shallow parts, and then build a floating bridge on the deep parts?

It's in tidal waters, so a floating bridge would be subjected to tides and waves, which can reach several feet high on calm days.

I happen to enjoy roller coasters.

Also, no, the ferry is not part of US 9. Otherwise NJDOT mileage would start at N.NN with a note that the remaining mileage is on the ferry.

[Rothman]

Also, no, the ferry is not part of US 9. Otherwise NJDOT mileage would start at N.NN with a note that the remaining mileage is on the ferry.

Sort of seems to be a tedious split of hairs to me.  I take it you'd expect a mile 0 marker in the middle of the bay at the border.

It's U.S. Route 9.  The only way to follow the route is to take the ferry.  Therefore, the ferry is an integral part of the route.

[GaryV]

It's U.S. Route 9.  The only way to follow the route is to take the ferry.  Therefore, the ferry is an integral part of the route.

Using that logic, US-2 exists in Lake Huron and Canada.

[corco]

I think the ferry is part of U.S. 9. It's not part of DelDOT's U.S. 9 or NJDOT's U.S. 9, but it is part of AASHTO's U.S. 9, and they're the agency that designates U.S. routes.

Saying the ferry is not U.S. 9 is like saying U.S. 85 doesn't exist in New Mexico. Yeah, there's an argument to be made that it doesn't because it's not signed or acknowledged by NMDOT but really it does because the people that are in charge of designating U.S. routes say it does.

U.S. 2 is discontinuous according to the agency that designates US routes, so that's a different ball of wax.

[Rothman]

It's U.S. Route 9.  The only way to follow the route is to take the ferry.  Therefore, the ferry is an integral part of the route.

Using that logic, US-2 exists in Lake Huron and Canada.

Nope.  I'm making the rules here.  East US 2 clearly ends at Rouses Point.  West US 2 clearly ends in St. Ignace.  There's no formal connection between the two.

[oscar]

wait, the Alaska Marines are numbered routes?

At least one of them got a Federal Aid Primary route number. However, the markers on the few highways Alaska numbers all use numbers different from their FAP numbers.

AK 7's four segments are linked by ferries. However, the ferries in the network serve different destinations, though the two biggest ferries make stops at all four. The other complicating thing is that for three of the segments, the ferry terminal is somewhere in the middle, so you can't take a ferry to the end of a segment, drive the segment, and catch another ferry at the other end. That makes it hard to view AK 7's segments and its connecting ferries as part of a single route, which might be why nobody there treats it as such. (I suspect the segments were numbered with the intention of building bridges connecting them end-to-end, though that fantasy quickly withered away.)

well, US 13 has one

Where? I've driven that recently end-to-end, IIRC there isn't one.

US 10 is officially considered to be two separate routes, although the ferry connecting them across Lake Michigan is seasonal.

AASHTO just approved the addition of the S.S. Badger ferry route to U.S. 10. If the Michigan and Wisconsin, etc. segments are still "officially considered" separate, they may not be for long.

Based on that precedent, I think adding the Cape May ferry across Delaware Bay to U.S. 9 would be a great idea. Just one that hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.

[NE2]

Based on that precedent, I think adding the Cape May ferry across Delaware Bay to U.S. 9 would be a great idea. Just one that hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.

The 1989 log shows a gap in US 10 but not US 9.

[hbelkins]

Based on that precedent, I think adding the Cape May ferry across Delaware Bay to U.S. 9 would be a great idea. Just one that hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.

The 1989 log shows a gap in US 10 but not US 9.

And I thought I read somewhere today that the ferry is now officially recognized as part of US 10.

[NE2]

Two posts up, Dum Dum.

[SteveG1988]

The Delaware Bay is subject to worse weather than any floating bridge is designed for. Hurricanes for one, tides for another. the outflow of the entire Delaware river as well. The Salt would corrode the bridge, along with any chemicals that flow down from the cities along the river.

Why not build one up river a bit? Near Hopewell Township NJ.

[NE2]

Why not build one up river a bit? Near Hopewell Township NJ.

Washington Crossed Here.

[jeffandnicole]

The Delaware Bay is subject to worse weather than any floating bridge is designed for. Hurricanes for one, tides for another. the outflow of the entire Delaware river as well. The Salt would corrode the bridge, along with any chemicals that flow down from the cities along the river.

Why not build one up river a bit? Near Hopewell Township NJ.

Because no highways would lead to it, the nearby land is quite a bit higher than the river, and there's already several major river crossings close to that area already.

[ekt8750]

The Delaware Bay is subject to worse weather than any floating bridge is designed for. Hurricanes for one, tides for another. the outflow of the entire Delaware river as well. The Salt would corrode the bridge, along with any chemicals that flow down from the cities along the river.

Why not build one up river a bit? Near Hopewell Township NJ.

Hopewell is also close to 100 miles north of Cape May and Lewes.

[Mr. Matté]

Possibly referring to the other Hopewell Township, the one in Cumberland County that doesn't border the bay?

[jeffandnicole]

Possibly referring to the other Hopewell Township, the one in Cumberland County that doesn't border the bay?

It's still tidal water, it's still a large area to cross for a floating bridge, the Delaware Memorial Bridge isn't that far away, and there's still no roads to lead to it. Besides, many people on the GSP and Rt. 9 are traveling to or near shore & beach destinations in both NJ and DE. A new bridge 30 miles away doesn't do anything for that traffic.

[hbelkins]

Two posts up, Dum Dum.

No, Randy Jr. I mean a real news story somewhere, not a member post here.