Please help me. I live in Richmond, VA. I am going to a conference in Ocean City, MD. The issue that I have is I don't want to EVER cross the bay bridge (us 50) or Chesapeake Bay bridge tunnel (60 miles) again.
When I go to Dover, I go up to like Newark, DE and then across. it's out of the way, but worth it. :colorful:
Thanks for the quick tip. I figured as much. does anyone know if there are any scary bridges that going through newark?
Also, it is about long how of a trip from Richmond this way?
-It's physically impossible to drive to Ocean City (or anywhere on the Delmarva for that matter) without going across a bridge that's at least a half mile long (US 301/DE 896) and 75ft up in the air (US 13/CBBT).
To Jennice: is there anything in particular about the CBBT or the Bay Bridge that you don't like, or is it just long/high bridges in general? I ask for two reasons:
-It's physically impossible to drive to Ocean City (or anywhere on the Delmarva for that matter) without going across a bridge that's at least a half mile long (US 301/DE 896) and 75ft up in the air (US 13/CBBT).
- As it is, going from Richmond to Ocean City via the Bay Bridge is 20 miles and 20 minutes longer than taking the CBBT. And detouring up to Elkton/Newport is 80 miles and well over an hour longer than the Bay Bridge.
Where do you pick up US 1 Conowingo Dam? @ Penndot, I think that I have been across the canal bridge before. That pic looks familiar. That wasn't bad at all.
@ Alex, the Millards bridge looks fine also. How do I pick that up?
The Canal or Millard bridge looks like the way to go.
Mapquest always takes me across the bay bridge and goin up US 50.You can drag the route: http://mapq.st/qOIVLH
A 2006 task force called the issue of adding more spans to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge “complex, controversial and compelling.” That sums it up pretty well, and that’s why having these discussions now, with an increasing sense of urgency, is wise.
Safety improvements are coming to the westbound span of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.
Beginning April 19, the Maryland Transportation Authority will install rumble strips, new lane markings and signs on the westbound Bay Bridge. The upgrades are to improve safety during "two-way" traffic operations.
A painted buffer and rumble strips will be added between the westbound left and center lanes.
ANNAPOLIS, Md.- For years, Maryland lawmakers have been debating the idea of adding a third span to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. Supporters say the state needs to start saving money now for such a big project. This comes after a report that outlined the cost of a new bridge.
A new bay bridge span is a five billion dollar proposal according to that report. Lawmakers from the Eastern Shore, led by democratic Senator Jim Mathias, believe that cost will not just be worth it, but is absolutely necessary as traffic continues to increase across the bay.
It's a long term project, but this year, republican Senator Addie Eckardt believes there's a stronger push than ever for the span following that report outlining the costs and benefits.
"I think enough people have been caught in traffic, and we've had enough incidents on the bay bridge this year that it's beginning to sink in. So we do have to make that investment for the future, and we need to begin now," said Eckardt.
Of course, Hogan decided to cut a big source of revenue that the state could have started saving for a 3rd span...
IIRC, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge has an escort service for those with a phobia of heights and bridges.
IIRC, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge has an escort service for those with a phobia of heights and bridges.
That was eliminated 15 or 20 years ago.
If a third bridge is built, will the other two be reconfigured so all three bridges are up to Interstate Standards (even if they never become part of the Interstate System)?
Quote from: The GhostbusterIf a third bridge is built, will the other two be reconfigured so all three bridges are up to Interstate Standards (even if they never become part of the Interstate System)?
No. It's physically impossible to reconfigure the existing spans to Interstate standard, ESPECIALLY the eastbound span.
Of course, Hogan decided to cut a big source of revenue that the state could have started saving for a 3rd span...
Quote from: The GhostbusterIf a third bridge is built, will the other two be reconfigured so all three bridges are up to Interstate Standards (even if they never become part of the Interstate System)?
No. It's physically impossible to reconfigure the existing spans to Interstate standard, ESPECIALLY the eastbound span.
I disagree, in a sense.
Your suggestion still would not bring the spans to Interstate standard, which in these situations would require full shoulders on both sides. Even for a full shoulder on one side and a partial on the other, the bridge deck width is not wide enough.
Read the AASHTO Green Book for Interstates. I believe they allow going down as narrow as 5' shoulder across long spans.Your suggestion still would not bring the spans to Interstate standard, which in these situations would require full shoulders on both sides. Even for a full shoulder on one side and a partial on the other, the bridge deck width is not wide enough.
Both sides, no. But were there to be an Interstate highway crossing the Chesapeake Bay, I am pretty certain that FHWA would waive that requirement. There are plenty of freeways across the U.S. that have little or no shoulder on the left, including long sections of the Capital Beltway and much of the East-West Mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (and long sections of "free" freeways in Pennsylvania).
I would see this as a good excuse to build the world's longest suspension span. Just to break world records. May be used to appease the voters. "we need a new bridge, and we also are going to make it a record breaker"
If they build it close to the existing spans, then they would need similar tower placements and pier placements to prevent erosion from the uneven current, and also to smooth flow under the main spans. I predict if they go that route, they will use a concrete cantiliver for the secondary span, and a solid deck suspension bridge with similar tower structure to the existing westbound bridge. Reduce the truss count as much as possible.
I would see this as a good excuse to build the world's longest suspension span. Just to break world records. May be used to appease the voters. "we need a new bridge, and we also are going to make it a record breaker"
If they build it close to the existing spans, then they would need similar tower placements and pier placements to prevent erosion from the uneven current, and also to smooth flow under the main spans. I predict if they go that route, they will use a concrete cantiliver for the secondary span, and a solid deck suspension bridge with similar tower structure to the existing westbound bridge. Reduce the truss count as much as possible.
When was the last time a long-span suspension bridge was even built in the United States?
The replacement east span at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, finally completed 2 years-and-change ago. Before that would be the eastbound Tacoma Narrows Bridge, finished in 2007.
I would see this as a good excuse to build the world's longest suspension span. Just to break world records. May be used to appease the voters. "we need a new bridge, and we also are going to make it a record breaker"
If they build it close to the existing spans, then they would need similar tower placements and pier placements to prevent erosion from the uneven current, and also to smooth flow under the main spans. I predict if they go that route, they will use a concrete cantiliver for the secondary span, and a solid deck suspension bridge with similar tower structure to the existing westbound bridge. Reduce the truss count as much as possible.
I would see this as a good excuse to build the world's longest suspension span. Just to break world records. May be used to appease the voters. "we need a new bridge, and we also are going to make it a record breaker"
I have a feeling that the trustee representing the bondholders, and maybe the bondholders themselves, would not like that approach.If they build it close to the existing spans, then they would need similar tower placements and pier placements to prevent erosion from the uneven current, and also to smooth flow under the main spans. I predict if they go that route, they will use a concrete cantiliver for the secondary span, and a solid deck suspension bridge with similar tower structure to the existing westbound bridge. Reduce the truss count as much as possible.
Only place where it could possibly go if not next to the existing spans, would be well to the south, between Calvert County on the Western Shore and Dorchester County on the Eastern Shore. But there are plenty of properties that have to be avoided on both sides of the Bay, including the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and the Cove Point LNG terminal.
There would certainly need to be extensive and expensive upgrading of existing roads on both sides of the bay (probably an entirely new approach road on the eastern side) and the crossing itself might need to be a bridge-tunnel instead of a bridge.
The replacement Tappan Zee Bridge is perhaps not a good comparison, but the main spans will be cable-stayed, and otherwise not much in the way of trusses to be seen.
I would see this as a good excuse to build the world's longest suspension span. Just to break world records. May be used to appease the voters. "we need a new bridge, and we also are going to make it a record breaker"
I have a feeling that the trustee representing the bondholders, and maybe the bondholders themselves, would not like that approach.If they build it close to the existing spans, then they would need similar tower placements and pier placements to prevent erosion from the uneven current, and also to smooth flow under the main spans. I predict if they go that route, they will use a concrete cantiliver for the secondary span, and a solid deck suspension bridge with similar tower structure to the existing westbound bridge. Reduce the truss count as much as possible.
Only place where it could possibly go if not next to the existing spans, would be well to the south, between Calvert County on the Western Shore and Dorchester County on the Eastern Shore. But there are plenty of properties that have to be avoided on both sides of the Bay, including the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and the Cove Point LNG terminal.
There would certainly need to be extensive and expensive upgrading of existing roads on both sides of the bay (probably an entirely new approach road on the eastern side) and the crossing itself might need to be a bridge-tunnel instead of a bridge.
The replacement Tappan Zee Bridge is perhaps not a good comparison, but the main spans will be cable-stayed, and otherwise not much in the way of trusses to be seen.
My brother lives in Calvert County. They would probably fight a new bridge there. The county does not want a metro line extended to Calvert County, they keep lot sizes large, limit the size of big box stores etc to limit development.
My brother lives in Calvert County. They would probably fight a new bridge there. The county does not want a metro line extended to Calvert County, they keep lot sizes large, limit the size of big box stores etc to limit development.
Nor does anyone else...
Any looming theoretical limits to the length of a cable stayed span ?
Compression in the deck near the towers springs to mind, but just add more concrete, no ?
(like in the typical precast deck segments typical used, but instead of them being identical the length of the bridge, progressively thicken the walls of the segments near the towers.
As for wind loading, similar effects on much longer (true) suspension bridges have been dealt with.
As for vulnerability of the span to wind prior to completion, how the heck do they deal with that now? Seems like a deal killer for several already built, so there must be something they due to moderate the risk.
My brother lives in Calvert County. They would probably fight a new bridge there. The county does not want a metro line extended to Calvert County, they keep lot sizes large, limit the size of big box stores etc to limit development.
My brother lives near Dunkirk.. He and his wife call their local Walmart the small-mart because its size.. They said it's because of County zoning.. SIL is from rural Georgia the land of super mega WalmartMy brother lives in Calvert County. They would probably fight a new bridge there. The county does not want a metro line extended to Calvert County, they keep lot sizes large, limit the size of big box stores etc to limit development.
Don't worry about Metro. The closest it could ever come to Calvert County is an extension of the Green Line to Waldorf, and even that is beyond the current planning horizon.
Regarding big box retail, even been down Md. 2/Md. 4 lately? Plenty of big retail around Prince Frederick right now.
My brother lives near Dunkirk.. He and his wife call their local Walmart the small-mart because its size.. They said it's because of County zoning.. SIL is from rural Georgia the land of super mega Walmart
My brother lives in Calvert County. They would probably fight a new bridge there. The county does not want a metro line extended to Calvert County, they keep lot sizes large, limit the size of big box stores etc to limit development.
Nor does anyone else...
Tell that to Fairfax (SE, Centreville) and Prince William (Potomac Mills, Manassas) Counties...
Come on, you know very well that WMATA is done with system expansions until more capacity comes along.
Seeing as Metrorail in the areas you mentioned would amount to commuter service, I've always said more VRE is needed. In a fantasy world they'd be running hourly DMUs from the ends of the current system to Union Sta.
The other thing that needs to be considered with a Southern crossing is that 2-4 would need substantial upgrades. The current road geometry barely supports the current traffic flow. The Prince George's and Anne Arundel segments would probably need to be widened to 3-4 lanes, and then everything South would need to look more like MD 210.
I meant to say "core capacity" (namely Rosslyn Tunnel II) and I would like to think you know that's what I meant.
And, on that topic, no more strain on the Blue/Yellow trunk route until the issue with Rosslyn is addressed. Sorry, but there's an absolute need to restore the Blue Line before its ridership gives up for good.
Plus, will Fairfax ever allow the upzoning needed to justify the Metrorail routes you want? I'd like to see them get a TOD project right first before giving them more trackage.
The only way that could be done is if the third span is built south of the existing spans.
The only way that could be done is if the third span is built south of the existing spans.
Which would allow for a much longer curve to land on the western end.
Unlikely it would be north of the existing bridges, because of the presence of Sandy Point State Park there. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act would make that difficult.
The only way that could be done is if the third span is built south of the existing spans.So, a new span in the middle replacing the two of them would be impossible? Because it didn't look that way when I was there.
So, a new span in the middle replacing the two of them would be impossible? Because it didn't look that way when I was there.
QuoteSo, a new span in the middle replacing the two of them would be impossible? Because it didn't look that way when I was there.
Correct, that would be impossible. Not enough spacing in between the existing spans relative to their height, plus the spacing narrows as one approaches the western end of the span.
By 1919, the demand and pressure for some sort of Bay crossing led to the inauguration of regular ferry service between Annapolis and Claiborne, a 23-mile trip requiring two hours. Aside from the colonial ferry, this was the first regularly scheduled Bay ferry service in the State’s history. Mounting pressure for a bridge culminated in 1938, with legislation authorizing the crossing, but World War II postponed the efforts. Under the leadership of Governor William Preston Lane Jr., during the regular and extraordinary sessions of the 1947 General Assembly, the State Roads Commission was directed to proceed with building a Bay Bridge.
All earlier proposals for a bridge had planned for a crossing in the Bay Shore-Tolchester area. However, by 1938, the growing network of highways on the East Coast, the need to avoid hazardous navigation and the need to provide access to the lower Eastern Shore made a bridge location in the Sandy Point-Matapeake area most desirable.
After four decades of planning and waiting, the first shovelful of earth was turned in January 1949, in the area now occupied by the western approach roadway — and the largest public project in the history of the State had begun. Underwater work began, and the first permanent piles were driven into the Bay’s bottom in March 1950. By the end of the year, the bridge was more than one-third complete. The underwater work had been finished, including construction of the massive concrete piers to support the main towers and the anchor piers to hold the suspension-span cables.
Trey Hill uses satellites and precision farming technology to maximize his wheat, corn and soybean yields here in Kent County. If the planned third bridge across the Chesapeake Bay landed here, he says, it would destroy the natural barrier between Baltimore on his quiet, 300-acre farm.
Farther south on the Eastern Shore, Danny Thompson wants to preserve that type of quaint appeal. But as the director of economic development in Somerset County, he sees a new bridge as a potential boon, bringing more residents and tourism.
Suzanne Konigkramer, a Kent Islander who commutes across the current bridge daily to work in Annapolis, likes the idea of a third span to alleviate gridlock. Just please, she asks: find somewhere else to put it.
Spacing concerns with both construction and maintenance would likely preclude putting it in between. There's a reason the existing westbound span was built as far from the original (current eastbound) span as it was.
Spacing concerns with both construction and maintenance would likely preclude putting it in between. There's a reason the existing westbound span was built as far from the original (current eastbound) span as it was.
I agree. If a new span were to be built parallel to the existing two, it would need to go south of the "old" (1952) 2-lane span that normally runs eastbound only. North of the "new" (1972) 3-lane span probably means unacceptable impacts on Sandy Point State Park.
And there's at least some room south of the old span for a bridge landing on the western side of the crossing, by using the former area where the ferry had a slip prior to the opening of the "old" bridge.
What about 250' is dangerous, IYO? The new K-Bridge spans in NY will be about 16' apart.Spacing concerns with both construction and maintenance would likely preclude putting it in between. There's a reason the existing westbound span was built as far from the original (current eastbound) span as it was.
I agree. If a new span were to be built parallel to the existing two, it would need to go south of the "old" (1952) 2-lane span that normally runs eastbound only. North of the "new" (1972) 3-lane span probably means unacceptable impacts on Sandy Point State Park.
And there's at least some room south of the old span for a bridge landing on the western side of the crossing, by using the former area where the ferry had a slip prior to the opening of the "old" bridge.
The spans are about 450' apart (except where they taper together at the west end to accommodate the toll plaza and minimize impact on Sandy Point).
OTOH the spans of the Delaware Memorial Bridge are about 250' (dangerously close IMO). They are that close to accommodate the DuPont Chambers Works and the Atlantic City Electric power station on the NJ side.
Pictures I've seen of the old cantilevered Sunshine Skyway spans in FL have them being even closer together than 250', but I haven't found out how close.
ixnay
Is it too obvious to put a new bridge in between the two existing ones? The main spans are quite far apart.
Core capacity on Metro (even just the Orange and Silver Lines) is not just the part that crosses under the Potomac River. That's something the local news media gets wrong over and over and over again. Core capacity is from Rosslyn all the way to the wye on the elevated tracks east of Stadium/Armory near the D.C. 295/Benning Road, N.E. interchange.
What about 250' is dangerous, IYO? The new K-Bridge spans in NY will be about 16' apart.
^ It's a location that's still part of the study and got mentioned in the article posted the other day. But has plenty of problems of its own.
[Southern Bay Crossing]
^ It's a location that's still part of the study and got mentioned in the article posted the other day. But has plenty of problems of its own.
Cost issues for a 6-mile-long bridge plus about 20 miles of new approach roadways.
Environmental issues especially many wetlands between the bridge and US-50 near Cambridge.
Traffic issues as its position doesn't compete with the existing Bay Bridge for residents of the northern part of the D.C. area and the Baltimore area, traveling to the ocean resorts.
Cost issues for a 6-mile-long bridge plus about 20 miles of new approach roadways.The southern (or, more-correctly, mid-Bay) crossing is good in terms of establishing network redundancy, a good and desirable thing here, given that there are currently exactly two highways that link Maryland's Eastern Shore counties to the rest of the state.
Environmental issues especially many wetlands between the bridge and US-50 near Cambridge.
Traffic issues as its position doesn't compete with the existing Bay Bridge for residents of the northern part of the D.C. area and the Baltimore area, traveling to the ocean resorts.
Is it worth the expense? I don't know. That's for the study to determine.
My brother lives in Calvert County.. they very much want to keep the county rural( expensive exurbs now). The county commission does not want the metro extended to Calvert County so I am sure they do not want a new crossing of the Bay^ It's a location that's still part of the study and got mentioned in the article posted the other day. But has plenty of problems of its own.
I think it should be studied as part of a NEPA alternatives analysis. But the Bay there is roughly the same width as at Sandy Point (maybe slightly wider), and with approaches, it is over 9 miles from MD-2/MD-4 in Calvert County to MD-16 on Taylors Island (on the western side of Slaughter Creek).
A southern crossing also implies a lot of expensive improvements to many miles of MD-4 and maybe the MD-2 corridors north of any Calvert County landing of such a crossing.
It's also a considerable distance from a potential Dorchester County landing to U.S. 50 near Cambridge, at about 16 or 17 miles or more, following the path of MD-16.
There are also Section 4(f) resources (parklands) on both sides of the Chesapeake Bay to avoid, and also the Cove Point LNG Terminal and the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant that have to be avoided too.
My brother lives in Calvert County.. they very much want to keep the county rural( expensive exurbs now). The county commission does not want the metro extended to Calvert County so I am sure they do not want a new crossing of the Bay
Southern Calvert County has become a "suburb" of residential development for employment to the south in St. Mary's County, where Lexington Park has grown significantly thanks to BRAC (base realignment and closure) rounds, with many jobs related to the Defense Department ending up at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, including the Naval Air Systems Command. EDIT: There has been enough population growth in southern Calvert County, and across the Patuxent River in St. Mary's County, that a metropolitan planning organization has been formed called (quite simply) the Calvert-St. Mary's Metropolitan Planning Organization (https://www.calvert-stmarysmpo.com/).
What about 250' is dangerous, IYO? The new K-Bridge spans in NY will be about 16' apart.
What about 250' is dangerous, IYO? The new K-Bridge spans in NY will be about 16' apart.
From a quick measurement in Google Earth, it appears the Tacoma Narrow twins are only ~125 feet apart.
That is not going to happen. That is not the failure mode of a bridge. If something happens to one of the piers, the weight of the bridge will collapse downward. It really cannot topple outward like you're picturing.What about 250' is dangerous, IYO? The new K-Bridge spans in NY will be about 16' apart.
What if one of the DMB towers topples towards the other? Picture that scenario (smacks of Armageddon I know, but...).
ixnay
What about 250' is dangerous, IYO? The new K-Bridge spans in NY will be about 16' apart.
What if one of the DMB towers topples towards the other? Picture that scenario (smacks of Armageddon I know, but...).
ixnay
WASHINGTON — Drivers headed to the Eastern Shore on U.S. Route 50 were caught in long backups last Friday, and many were further aggravated when they discovered only two lanes were open to eastbound traffic at the Bay Bridge. It turns out the traffic pattern was no mistake, and it could become the new norm.
...
Last Friday, beach-bound families, commercial drivers and residents alike were blindsided by a backup that extended from near Interstate 97 to the Bay Bridge, a distance of greater than 10 miles. Unlike most partly sunny, summer Friday afternoons, the reversible lane remained devoted to westbound traffic, limiting eastbound drivers to two lanes across the Chesapeake Bay.
...
Although westbound traffic was at a free flow for hours before two-way traffic was put into effect, a spokesperson for the Maryland Transportation Authority said the agency will be prioritizing westbound traffic, keeping the reversible lane open to westbound drivers longer, even on summer Fridays.
The MDTA said police and fire departments and other rescue personnel east of the Bay Bridge in Queen Anne’s County have said that when westbound traffic on Route 50 backs up, bailout traffic floods the limited routes across Kent Island, thus hampering rescue operations.
Trip last Friday took me an extra hour. Side roads paralleling US-50 on the "mainland" side of the bridge were pretty packed, thus hampering any potential rescue operations. The conspiracy theorist in the room believes this is part of the push to build a third Bay crossing.
It may be into fictional highway territory, but I’m of the opinion that the 2-lane bridge needs to be replaced with a 6-lane bridge with full shoulders someday, and the 3-lane bridge repurposed for local and/or emergency traffic.I strongly doubt that a Northern or Southern crossing of any sort will ever be built.
It may be into fictional highway territory, but I’m of the opinion that the 2-lane bridge needs to be replaced with a 6-lane bridge with full shoulders someday, and the 3-lane bridge repurposed for local and/or emergency traffic.I strongly doubt that a Northern or Southern crossing of any sort will ever be built.
There is plenty of local traffic between the Annapolis area and Kent Island, and Baltimore and D.C. area commuters from Kent Island.
I don't know of any bridge in the world of that nature (function of length and height) that has a 10-foot right shoulder. Deck space on a bridge like that is extremely expensive to build.
I don't know of any bridge in the world of that nature (function of length and height) that has a 10-foot right shoulder. Deck space on a bridge like that is extremely expensive to build.DE Rt. 1 over the C&D canal.
Betsy Ross Bridge over the Delaware has an 8 foot shoulder (shoulders provided as bridge now has 6 lanes, not 8)
NJ/PA Turnpike bridge also has 8-10 foot shoulders.
NJ/PA Turnpike bridge also has 8-10 foot shoulders.Actually 12 feet. Same with Newark Bay Bridge. (shoulders provided as bridge now has 4 lanes, not 6)
There is plenty of local traffic between the Annapolis area and Kent Island, and Baltimore and D.C. area commuters from Kent Island.
I don't know of any bridge in the world of that nature (function of length and height) that has a 10-foot right shoulder. Deck space on a bridge like that is extremely expensive to build.
DE Rt. 1 over the C&D canal.
Betsy Ross Bridge over the Delaware has an 8 foot shoulder (shoulders provided as bridge now has 6 lanes, not 8)
NJ/PA Turnpike bridge also has 8-10 foot shoulders.
The new Scudder Falls Bridge is being designed with shoulders, I think.
DE Rt. 1 over the C&D canal.The new San Francisco Bay Bridge has both left and right shoulders.
Betsy Ross Bridge over the Delaware has an 8 foot shoulder (shoulders provided as bridge now has 6 lanes, not 8)
NJ/PA Turnpike bridge also has 8-10 foot shoulders.
The new Scudder Falls Bridge is being designed with shoulders, I think.
The new Woodrow Wilson Bridge connecting MD-DC-VA has full shoulders.
Don't the new Tappan Zee Bridge and Goethals Bridge also have real shoulders?
I think it is becoming the norm now to build shoulders on major bridges...
. Forget the main span. Approaches are also structures. I can tell you from inside the industry that it's becoming more and more common due to the safety benefits, especially on Interstates.DE Rt. 1 over the C&D canal.The new San Francisco Bay Bridge has both left and right shoulders.
Betsy Ross Bridge over the Delaware has an 8 foot shoulder (shoulders provided as bridge now has 6 lanes, not 8)
NJ/PA Turnpike bridge also has 8-10 foot shoulders.
The new Scudder Falls Bridge is being designed with shoulders, I think.
The new Woodrow Wilson Bridge connecting MD-DC-VA has full shoulders.
Don't the new Tappan Zee Bridge and Goethals Bridge also have real shoulders?
I think it is becoming the norm now to build shoulders on major bridges...
Norm? I don't think so. The SF and TZ are the only ones approaching the main span of CBB (1,600 feet horiz. and 190 feet vert.)
C&D and Goethals are in the 700-foot span range, WWB about 200. Betsy Ross and PA/NY Turnpike were built with lanes that were later reverted to shoulders. Scudder Falls is basically a viaduct.
The SF and TZ are the only ones approaching the main span of CBB (1,600 feet horiz. and 190 feet vert.). Forget the main span. Approaches are also structures. I can tell you from inside the industry that it's becoming more and more common due to the safety benefits, especially on Interstates.
C&D and Goethals are in the 700-foot span range, WWB about 200. Betsy Ross and PA/NY Turnpike were built with lanes that were later reverted to shoulders. Scudder Falls is basically a viaduct.
Same percentage of additional cost as anywhere else, just a higher cost to take that percentage from. I'm sure the Tappan Zee holds its own on a cost basis.The SF and TZ are the only ones approaching the main span of CBB (1,600 feet horiz. and 190 feet vert.). Forget the main span. Approaches are also structures. I can tell you from inside the industry that it's becoming more and more common due to the safety benefits, especially on Interstates.
C&D and Goethals are in the 700-foot span range, WWB about 200. Betsy Ross and PA/NY Turnpike were built with lanes that were later reverted to shoulders. Scudder Falls is basically a viaduct.
A bridge with a long main span usually is very high and very long, as in what clearances and structure length is needed to cross a channel and estuary that handles large ocean going ships. So the cost of providing extra structure width on bridge like that is substantially higher.
The Newark Bay Bridge on the NJ Turnpike always had full shoulders.There is plenty of local traffic between the Annapolis area and Kent Island, and Baltimore and D.C. area commuters from Kent Island.
I don't know of any bridge in the world of that nature (function of length and height) that has a 10-foot right shoulder. Deck space on a bridge like that is extremely expensive to build.
DE Rt. 1 over the C&D canal.
Betsy Ross Bridge over the Delaware has an 8 foot shoulder (shoulders provided as bridge now has 6 lanes, not 8)
NJ/PA Turnpike bridge also has 8-10 foot shoulders.
The new Scudder Falls Bridge is being designed with shoulders, I think.
The new San Francisco Bay Bridge has both left and right shoulders.
The new Woodrow Wilson Bridge connecting MD-DC-VA has full shoulders.
Don't the new Tappan Zee Bridge and Goethals Bridge also have real shoulders?
I think it is becoming the norm now to build shoulders on major bridges...
A bridge with a long main span usually is very high and very long, as in what clearances and structure length is needed to cross a channel and estuary that handles large ocean going ships. So the cost of providing extra structure width on bridge like that is substantially higher.Same percentage of additional cost as anywhere else, just a higher cost to take that percentage from. I'm sure the Tappan Zee holds its own on a cost basis.
The Newark Bay Bridge on the NJ Turnpike always had full shoulders.
You are correct - it started at 6 lanes and went to 4. The rush hour thing is over because the Pulaski Skyway reopened, so it's back to 2/2 only.The Newark Bay Bridge on the NJ Turnpike always had full shoulders.
Wasn't that originally a 6-lane bridge and then later on two of the lanes were reverted to full shoulders?
In any event, Wikipedia says this about the NJTP Newark Bay Bridge --
During certain hours, especially morning rush hour, the eastbound shoulder of the Turnpike Extension (including the bridge) is opened for normal traffic (by green arrows above, instead of red Xs), for a total of 5 lanes (3 eastbound, 2 westbound).
When it had 6 lanes it had to be a long while back. As far as I remember, when I lived there anyway, it was always 4 lanes from Exit 14 to 14C and the free part to the Holland Tunnel ( Jersey Avenue). However, it was not until either right before I moved to FL in 1990 or after I moved here to FL and visited home, I noticed that there was full shoulders which struck me odd as most bridges of that type feature none usually.
I am guessing it was once 3/3 and then dropped to 2/2 at 14A at one time. Though even the Passaic River Eastern Spur and Hackensack River Eastern Spur were originally 2/2 with the piers underneath the structure to show that. When they did the work on it I remember it was long after the Western Spur opened as well. So it is odd that the extension had one more travel lane each way than the mainline it stems from as originally even the 3/3/3/3 were at 2/2 when the Turnpike first opened.
However, stranger things on roads have happened.
Isn't the extra shoulder width on the new Tappan Zee Bridge already possibly spoken for with respect to adding railroad to the bridge?I would hope they wouldn't take the shoulder. Those shoulders are needed - a major problem with the old bridge (and until they finish the new ones) is disabled vehicles/accidents blocking travel lanes and causing multi-hour delays because there's nowhere to pull over. The project site doesn't specify where any future rail would go, just that the bridge has the "structural capacity" for it.
One alternative would be to build a third span between the two and that would carry a 2-track railroad.
Another alternative would add one track to the inside of each of the two new bridges, and the buffer space for the track would probably consume most or nearly all of the left and right shoulders after the 4 lanes were shifted to the right.
The bridge on I-295 (West Beltway) over the St. Johns River also has full (or nearly full - the left might be a couple feet short) shoulders.
I would hope they wouldn't take the shoulder. Those shoulders are needed - a major problem with the old bridge (and until they finish the new ones) is disabled vehicles/accidents blocking travel lanes and causing multi-hour delays because there's nowhere to pull over. The project site doesn't specify where any future rail would go, just that the bridge has the "structural capacity" for it.
It also notes dedicated bus lanes, but whether those are shared with shoulders or not isn't specified, and both are implied in various parts of the FAQ. If not, one could possibly add rail there.
They did what FDOT did on the I-4 bridge over CR 532 in Osceola County, FL. It was 2/2 no shoulders, but two different overpasses due to the wide median there. Then if you go underneath, you see the two straight piers next to the original capped piers of the original two lanes. Now there is another inside pier that is T shaped to allow for the current third lane to the highway as I-4 was widened to 3/3 back in 2000 or so. Of course now it will be widened again in the Beyond the Ultimate Project which will most likely replace all those bridges as a DDI is planned for there in addition to FDOT lately wasting money in many places and gong for full replacement just to add another lane or two to it. However the DDI would not work under the current structure as I will admit that interchange does need one badly due to many left turns taking place at on and off peak hours.When it had 6 lanes it had to be a long while back. As far as I remember, when I lived there anyway, it was always 4 lanes from Exit 14 to 14C and the free part to the Holland Tunnel ( Jersey Avenue). However, it was not until either right before I moved to FL in 1990 or after I moved here to FL and visited home, I noticed that there was full shoulders which struck me odd as most bridges of that type feature none usually.
I am guessing it was once 3/3 and then dropped to 2/2 at 14A at one time. Though even the Passaic River Eastern Spur and Hackensack River Eastern Spur were originally 2/2 with the piers underneath the structure to show that. When they did the work on it I remember it was long after the Western Spur opened as well. So it is odd that the extension had one more travel lane each way than the mainline it stems from as originally even the 3/3/3/3 were at 2/2 when the Turnpike first opened.
However, stranger things on roads have happened.
The Newark Bay Bridge and Hudson County extension went from 3/3 to 2/2 with shoulders in 1960 per NJTP Annual Report.
The two major bridges on the eastern spur were originally 3/3 with no shoulders, and then widened in 1973/74 to include shoulders. Please see my thread "Old NJ Turnpike Photos" for evidence...
Wasn't the idea for the new Tappan Zee to put the rail line underneath the vehicle deck? I recall reading that being the case, but can't find it now.I recall reading that somewhere too, but no idea where, or when. Given the way the bridge looks, I'm not sure where it would fit, unless it would be dangling from the supports somehow. There certainly isn't anything for a second deck to rest on with what's there now or the renderings of the finished project (this looks like the one I have in my cubicle (https://www.larsa4d.com/img/home/tz1.jpg)).
Wasn't the idea for the new Tappan Zee to put the rail line underneath the vehicle deck? I recall reading that being the case, but can't find it now.My understanding is that the rail would go between the two bridges, with a connecting concrete beam going across between each set of piers to tie the two structures together. The extra width on each deck is for a bus lane - once that is added, they will have normal shoulders instead of giant left shoulders.
I keep thinking this thread should've had a poll asking whether or not anyone here is afraid to drive on the bridge. Last night I watched that old YouTube video from Inside Edition on how it's supposedly the scariest bridge in America.
You people know the stories of the few times I've driven on this bridge, right? How the first time I tried it, I was more afraid of being pulled over by the cops on my way to crossing the bridge rather than the bridge itself?
I keep thinking this thread should've had a poll asking whether or not anyone here is afraid to drive on the bridge. Last night I watched that old YouTube video from Inside Edition on how it's supposedly the scariest bridge in America.
You people know the stories of the few times I've driven on this bridge, right? How the first time I tried it, I was more afraid of being pulled over by the cops on my way to crossing the bridge rather than the bridge itself?
IMO, the thing that makes some drivers think it is a "scary" bridge is that when they approach the toll plaza (eastbound only on the Western Shore at Sandy Point) the size of the both spans is very vividly on display, and some people that might not be bothered by crossing similar large bridges (George Washington Bridge, Verrazano Narrows, Delaware Memorial, Golden Gate and others) are unnerved by what they see.
I keep thinking this thread should've had a poll asking whether or not anyone here is afraid to drive on the bridge. Last night I watched that old YouTube video from Inside Edition on how it's supposedly the scariest bridge in America.
And your experience is the definitive one. No one else's can be different or even matters.I keep thinking this thread should've had a poll asking whether or not anyone here is afraid to drive on the bridge. Last night I watched that old YouTube video from Inside Edition on how it's supposedly the scariest bridge in America.
That notion came from sensationalist idiots in the news media. I have driven the bridges hundreds of times, going back to when it was one 2-lane 2-way bridge, and I have never been "scared" by the trip, or even "anxious".
And your experience is the definitive one. No one else's can be different or even matters.I keep thinking this thread should've had a poll asking whether or not anyone here is afraid to drive on the bridge. Last night I watched that old YouTube video from Inside Edition on how it's supposedly the scariest bridge in America.That notion came from sensationalist idiots in the news media. I have driven the bridges hundreds of times, going back to when it was one 2-lane 2-way bridge, and I have never been "scared" by the trip, or even "anxious".
Still doesn't cover everyone's else's experience. It only takes one exception to disprove your evidence.And your experience is the definitive one. No one else's can be different or even matters.I keep thinking this thread should've had a poll asking whether or not anyone here is afraid to drive on the bridge. Last night I watched that old YouTube video from Inside Edition on how it's supposedly the scariest bridge in America.That notion came from sensationalist idiots in the news media. I have driven the bridges hundreds of times, going back to when it was one 2-lane 2-way bridge, and I have never been "scared" by the trip, or even "anxious".
Strawman over Internet. How about the dozens (or more) people in the Maryland and environs region that I have heard discuss the bridge over the last 50 years.
Still doesn't cover everyone's else's experience. It only takes one exception to disprove your evidence.
Christ.
People do experience anxiety driving over that bridge. I have friends who have -refused- to drive over that bridge because it induces a panic attack. I know if I'm on the outside lanes of some bridges with low or exposed railings, I could have a panic attack if I look over.
20-30 per day (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/chesapeake-bay-bridge-drive-over_n_3346540.html).The Huffington comPost.
So now you're denying data that was just presented to you. Drop it, Kozel.
So now you're denying data that was just presented to you. Drop it, Kozel.
So now you're denying data that was just presented to you. Drop it, Kozel.Alps wins the Internet today.
bridges generally don't bother me at all, but i was definitely more comfortable in the center lane going WB over the bridge. my girlfriend kept her eyes closed over length of the bridge.I had my cruise set the whole time as everybody stayed steady even with the left lane WB set for EB travel (as it was Labor Day Weekend and folks were heading to the beaches that day). That bridge was not at all scary.
I would especially dread driving over that bridge in very windy conditions, though.
I just drove across the bridge for the first time today, was pretty impressed with the scale of it. While I don't recall seeing anyone pull over because I was not paying attention to that, I can certainly see how people with a fear of heights, or anxiety might be intimidated by it (particularly the narrower older span, and/or in adverse conditions.)
The scariest bridge I've ever driven on with wind is the Tydings Bridge. I stay in the middle lane because without shoulders, those nasty gusts easily push my small car 2 feet.I would especially dread driving over that bridge in very windy conditions, though.
Well so would I but how often does that happen. Hasn't happened to me yet in over 200 trips. Depending on the definition of "very windy"; they close the bridge to traffic when high winds are forecast.
3000 posts
The scariest bridge I've ever driven on with wind is the Tydings Bridge. I stay in the middle lane because without shoulders, those nasty gusts easily push my small car 2 feet.
Stop trying to intentionally be a dick in so many threads at once. You're spreading yourself too thin. I never said "every time". Let me know how you enjoy your EF5.The scariest bridge I've ever driven on with wind is the Tydings Bridge. I stay in the middle lane because without shoulders, those nasty gusts easily push my small car 2 feet.
So there are "nasty gusts" every time you cross over that bridge? I crossed that at least 50 times in my 1968 VW Beetle (dating myself) and maybe I was just lucky but I don't recall having any problem with wind there.
Maybe next time I will be 'unlucky' and encounter an EF5 tornado when crossing.
Stop trying to intentionally be a dick in so many threads at once. You're spreading yourself too thin. I never said "every time".The scariest bridge I've ever driven on with wind is the Tydings Bridge. I stay in the middle lane because without shoulders, those nasty gusts easily push my small car 2 feet.So there are "nasty gusts" every time you cross over that bridge? I crossed that at least 50 times in my 1968 VW Beetle (dating myself) and maybe I was just lucky but I don't recall having any problem with wind there.
Maybe next time I will be 'unlucky' and encounter an EF5 tornado when crossing.
Let me know how you enjoy your EF5.
Stop trying to intentionally be a dick in so many threads at once. You're spreading yourself too thin. I never said "every time".The scariest bridge I've ever driven on with wind is the Tydings Bridge. I stay in the middle lane because without shoulders, those nasty gusts easily push my small car 2 feet.So there are "nasty gusts" every time you cross over that bridge? I crossed that at least 50 times in my 1968 VW Beetle (dating myself) and maybe I was just lucky but I don't recall having any problem with wind there.
Maybe next time I will be 'unlucky' and encounter an EF5 tornado when crossing.
Well, my take on it is that there are some posters who have a habit of being annoying and irritating and overly defensive of their worldview and who don't react well when challenged. Maybe they don't realize they are doing that; maybe so, maybe not. Most of the time I ignore it, but sometimes I don't.Let me know how you enjoy your EF5.
I am enjoying my very well funded retirement!
I am enjoying my very well funded retirement!Hope you have your water wings
I think he's referring to what you're about to get in 72-96 hours...
I think he's referring to what you're about to get in 72-96 hours...My grandparents rented a house in Bowers Beach to stay in for my birthday (about 15 minutes away). Just called them to tell them they should cancel since I'm sure Bowers Beach Road will be impassible by then (it's impassible now according to DelDOT). Bummer.
You guys got hammered down in greater Philadelphia.I think he's referring to what you're about to get in 72-96 hours...My grandparents rented a house in Bowers Beach to stay in for my birthday (about 15 minutes away). Just called them to tell them they should cancel since I'm sure Bowers Beach Road will be impassible by then (it's impassible now according to DelDOT). Bummer.
I think he's referring to what you're about to get in 72-96 hours...
The latest track prediction has Richmond at the edge where winds would probably be 20 mph or less. Obviously the track can change in 4 days.
The rain forecast makes it sound like parts of Virginia may experience flashbacks to Hurricane Camille.
It's not the wind that's going to be your problem. The "water wings" comment from previously is very appropriate.I think he's referring to what you're about to get in 72-96 hours...The latest track prediction has Richmond at the edge where winds would probably be 20 mph or less. Obviously the track can change in 4 days.
I just drove across the bridge for the first time today, was pretty impressed with the scale of it. While I don't recall seeing anyone pull over because I was not paying attention to that, I can certainly see how people with a fear of heights, or anxiety might be intimidated by it (particularly the narrower older span, and/or in adverse conditions.)
There are no shoulders on the CBB. Are you talking about the CBBT?
There are no shoulders on the CBB. Are you talking about the CBBT?I mean the lead up to the bridge around the toll booths. Someone mentioned a driving service and that is what I was referring to. I have never traversed the CBBT.
again, this is what I'm referring to. I did not see anyone pulled over on the shoulder BEFORE the bridgeThere are no shoulders on the CBB. Are you talking about the CBBT?I mean the lead up to the bridge around the toll booths. Someone mentioned a driving service and that is what I was referring to. I have never traversed the CBBT.
The US-50/US-301 approach highway is a freeway with full shoulders, including the toll plaza area.
again, this is what I'm referring to. I did not see anyone pulled over on the shoulder BEFORE the bridgeThere are no shoulders on the CBB. Are you talking about the CBBT?I mean the lead up to the bridge around the toll booths. Someone mentioned a driving service and that is what I was referring to. I have never traversed the CBBT.
The US-50/US-301 approach highway is a freeway with full shoulders, including the toll plaza area.
The Bay Crossing Study Tier 1 is retaining the No-Build alternative and these Preliminary Corridor Alternatives Retained for Analysis (CARA):
- Corridor 6: MD 100 to US 301 between Pasadena (Anne Arundel County), Rock Hall (Kent County) and Centreville (Queen Anne’s County);
- Corridor 7: existing Bay Bridge corridor, US 50/301 to US 50 between Crofton (Anne Arundel County) and Queenstown (Queen Anne’s County); and
- Corridor 8: US 50/301 between Crofton (Anne Arundel County) and Easton (Talbot County).
Data indicate that each of the three corridor alternatives could have a positive impact on traffic. Corridor 7, the corridor where the existing Bay Bridge is today, provides the most congestion relief. This corridor best relieves congestion at the existing Bay Bridge on both non-summer weekdays and summer weekends compared to all other corridors. Corridor 7 would best reduce backups at the existing Bay Bridge, provide the greatest reduction in the duration of unacceptable congestion levels, and is more compatible with existing land-use patterns, according to the study data.
Washington Post: A new bridge close to Chesapeake Bay Bridge would provide the most traffic relief, study says (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/a-new-bridge-close-to-chesapeake-bay-bridge-would-relieve-the-most-traffic-study-says/2019/08/27/3c2550b8-c8dc-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html)No revelation here. That has been documented repeatedly over the last 20 years. Presumably a third span in the current complex.
I don't think we'll see a new bridge until at least 2030. Next up for MDTA is the Nice bridge.
No revelation here. That has been documented repeatedly over the last 20 years. Presumably a third span in the current complex.
The northern crossing at Tolchester Beach or the southern crossing at Taylors Island, would have only a fraction of the catchment as compared to the existing crossing. Maps alone are more than sufficient to demonstrate this.
There is the other option to get a bridge built sooner which would be a P3. I think that's an option since that's the route being taken for the HOT lanes being proposed. The private entity would build the new bridge and probably even demolish the existing bridges. I would guess that they may even take over the existing facility when a deal is finalized. And after the lease expires the facility reverts back to the MDTA.
I agree that the other alternatives are there so they can say they looked at alternatives.
There is the other option to get a bridge built sooner which would be a P3. I think that's an option since that's the route being taken for the HOT lanes being proposed. The private entity would build the new bridge and probably even demolish the existing bridges. I would guess that they may even take over the existing facility when a deal is finalized. And after the lease expires the facility reverts back to the MDTA.
A PPP for a new 8-lane bridge and the demolition of the 2 existing bridges?
Wonder what the tolls would be.I agree that the other alternatives are there so they can say they looked at alternatives.
But as I said they have been doing this for over 20 years.
Wonder what the tolls would be.I wonder if they could do congestion based or some type of variable toll rates. You likely couldn't get many drivers to divert to another route north or south around the bay. But you could get them to change the time of their crossing using a variable toll to help spread out traffic during peak periods.
But as I said they have been doing this for over 20 years.I would imagine what's included in studies could have changed significantly in that time.
A new crossing at Tolchester Beach or Rock Hall is nice from a network redundancy point of view...
IMO, I think it unlikely that either of the existing bridges will be torn-down. Even the older bridge (opened to traffic in 1952) has quite a bit of useful life left (supposedly it was designed with an estimated life span of 100 years). Same applies to the newer span, opened in 1972 or 1973 (I do not feel like looking it up).The problem is not the lifespan of the bridge it's the maintenance. We don't build truss and suspension bridges anymore because of the maintenance required for them. Instead of sinking more funds into maintenance on an obsolete bridge it's likely more cost effective to build a new bridge.
I seriously doubt that Maryland's elected officials would consent to the tear-down of either structure.
In order to accommodate the highest projected 2040 eastbound and westbound volumes (6,225 vph on Friday afternoon, and 6,330 vph on Sunday evening in the eastbound and westbound direction, respectively) at Level of Service D or E, a minimum of 5 lanes in the peak direction would be required. However, due to the highly directional nature of seasonal volumes, no more than three lanes will be needed in the off‐peak direction. To minimize the footprint of the bridge, these operating conditions lend themselves well to the use of reversible lanes.https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Files/Bay_Bridge_LCCA_Report_12-2015.pdf
IMO, I think it unlikely that either of the existing bridges will be torn-down. Even the older bridge (opened to traffic in 1952) has quite a bit of useful life left (supposedly it was designed with an estimated life span of 100 years). Same applies to the newer span, opened in 1972 or 1973 (I do not feel like looking it up). I seriously doubt that Maryland's elected officials would consent to the tear-down of either structure.They would have to replace that 5 lanes of capacity with new bridge(s). That would be really expensive. I don't know if they were thinking about a 100 year lifespan in 1952, but a bridge of that magnitude will be kept in operation as long as possible, over 100 years if possible.
I very much doubt that a 6-lane bridge would be built for either a northern or southern crossing. Based on traffic volumes, four lanes at most, and due to costs maybe even 2 lanes.A new crossing at Tolchester Beach or Rock Hall is nice from a network redundancy point of view...Also beside redundancy, one thing a separate crossing brings is a better likelihood of more capacity. If you expand the existing crossing you likely would go from 5 lanes to 8 lanes. Building a second crossing could bring you from 5 lanes to 11 lanes with a new 6 lane crossing.
Granted that leaves you with continuing to use the existing bridges and eventually still having to replace them. And that's probably more capacity than is needed.
I say demolish the existing bridges and build a 10-lane bridge (or two 5-lane bridges) with 4 general purpose lanes, 1 HOV lane, and 12 foot outside and inside shoulders in each direction, along with widening the highway between at least I-97 (or maybe all the way to I-495) and the US-301 / US-50 split to 4 GP + 1 HOV. Toll all lanes in both directions with electronic tolling over the bridge.Good luck. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge is considerably longer and higher than the Tappan Zee Bridge, and the structure of the TZB was never intended to last that long and was basically shot, and both CBB have had major rehab projects. There is nothing wrong with the structures themselves.
Similar to how the Tappan Zee Bridge was done in New York.
Expensive, but would definitely have adequate capacity.
Not good because I have been needing to make several trips a month to the Eastern Shore. My weekday trips have not yet encountered one of these jams. One lane closed on the 3-lane westbound bridge.45 minute backups? Just sounds like a typical Friday on nearby I-95 leaving south. Been there, done that countless times. Thankfully my travels no longer take me up to Northern Virginia / Southern Maryland.
A maintenance project scheduled to keep part of Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Bridge closed for most of the next two years has created what many motorists and residents say is unprecedented traffic misery on both sides of the bay.
Autumn backups are rivaling those typically seen on the busiest summer beach weekends. Eastbound backups one recent Friday stretched for 14 miles, snarling traffic across a large swath of Anne Arundel County for 10 hours.
In Queen Anne’s County, where the bridge touches down on the Eastern Shore, traffic headed west on a recent Sunday evening stacked up for almost nine miles. The area now sees Monday morning backups that motorists say have added up to 45 minutes to already lengthy commutes.
[....]
With about 40,000 vehicles crossing daily, the impacts of closing one lane of the westbound span to replace the bridge deck have rippled far beyond the crossing. Area residents say Waze and other navigation apps have spread the problem by rerouting motorists onto local roads that quickly become swamped.
The Maryland Transportation Authority, which operates the bridge, declined to make anyone available for an interview.
In an emailed statement, spokeswoman Kelly Melhem said the $27 million project is “critical” to preserve the four-mile bridge, and the transportation authority is asking for “patience and understanding during these necessary safety repairs.”
[....]
See the URL for the rest.
Bridge repairs bring unprecedented traffic misery to both sides of Chesapeake Bay
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/bridge-repairs-bring-unprecedented-traffic-misery-to-both-sides-of-chesapeake-bay/2019/10/13/a9049080-eac0-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html
I understand why the Eastern Shore is weary about adding a second Bay Bridge, but at the same time, this is why NIMBYism becomes dangerous. At some point work is going to have to be done on the one bridge that carries people between the Eastern and Western Shores and this is inevitably going to happen.Not good because I have been needing to make several trips a month to the Eastern Shore. My weekday trips have not yet encountered one of these jams. One lane closed on the 3-lane westbound bridge.45 minute backups? Just sounds like a typical Friday on nearby I-95 leaving south. Been there, done that countless times. Thankfully my travels no longer take me up to Northern Virginia / Southern Maryland.
(snipped article quote)
See the URL for the rest.
Bridge repairs bring unprecedented traffic misery to both sides of Chesapeake Bay
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/bridge-repairs-bring-unprecedented-traffic-misery-to-both-sides-of-chesapeake-bay/2019/10/13/a9049080-eac0-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html
No delays when I do that on the HOT lanes, at least until the HOT lanes end south of Garrisonville. In 2023 there will be HOT lanes and C-D lanes all the way to south of VA-3 at Fredericksburg.45 minute backups? Just sounds like a typical Friday on nearby I-95 leaving south. Been there, done that countless times.
I understand why the Eastern Shore is weary about adding a second Bay Bridge, but at the same time, this is why NIMBYism becomes dangerous. At some point work is going to have to be done on the one bridge that carries people between the Eastern and Western Shores and this is inevitably going to happen.The problem with the current project (granted it is justified due to the age of the bridge deck) is that it is spilling those summer-weekend-scale delays into many other hours of the week that are not normal delay periods.
No delays when I do that on the HOT lanes, at least until the HOT lanes end south of Garrisonville. In 2023 there will be HOT lanes and C-D lanes all the way to south of VA-3 at Fredericksburg.Good for you, I didn’t feel like paying $30 one-way during my Friday afternoon commutes.
You haven't had "countless times my travels had me leaving that area at that time".No delays when I do that on the HOT lanes, at least until the HOT lanes end south of Garrisonville. In 2023 there will be HOT lanes and C-D lanes all the way to south of VA-3 at Fredericksburg.Good for you, I didn’t feel like paying $30 one-way during my Friday afternoon commutes.
Based on the countless times my travels had me leaving that area at that time, the additional time is nothing compared to the hundreds of dollars I’ve saved. I don’t see that type of money worth the “incentive” of getting somewhere 30 minutes faster.
Whatever happens to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in the future, I hope they can add breakdown shoulders to the bridge. The lanes look very narrow, too, and there are no bicycle/pedestrian accommodations. Is there any way to add safety and design improvements to the Chesapeake without having to build a whole new bridge from scratch?The lanes are normal width, 12 feet wide. The westbound bridge could be restriped to 2 lanes and have a full right shoulder, but of course while that would provide modern safety standards, the 3rd lane would be lost.
Who are you to dictate when and where my travels take me? At least 15 times I’ve down the trip outbound on a Friday afternoon.You haven't had "countless times my travels had me leaving that area at that time".No delays when I do that on the HOT lanes, at least until the HOT lanes end south of Garrisonville. In 2023 there will be HOT lanes and C-D lanes all the way to south of VA-3 at Fredericksburg.Good for you, I didn’t feel like paying $30 one-way during my Friday afternoon commutes.
Based on the countless times my travels had me leaving that area at that time, the additional time is nothing compared to the hundreds of dollars I’ve saved. I don’t see that type of money worth the “incentive” of getting somewhere 30 minutes faster.
Why do you keep inciting arguments with me? This is not a VA I-95 thread. The group moderators have issued formal warnings to you and I several times already. You apparently don't have enough online group experience to know what that means.
There's about to be a nice little timeout for you two if you don't knock off baiting each other and taking the bait.I made a comment comparing the Bay Bridge congestion to nearby I-95. Nothing was intended as "bait". The only baiting was the HO/T lane card, which has been used umpteenth times.
I question whether bicycle/pedestrian accommodations should ever be part of a bridge that is that long and that high above the water. I have a mountain bike that I ride, but I would have to think hard before crossing a bridge that long and that high, given the vagaries of weather and high winds. I walked across it once in a Bay Bridge Walk, and that is a looooooonnnngg walk!RE/T groups would demand any new bridge accommodate a nice walking path polished with scenic lookout points, should a bridge be built and the state makes it past their demands of no bridge to begin with.
The lanes are normal width, 12 feet wide. The westbound bridge could be restriped to 2 lanes and have a full right shoulder, but of course while that would provide modern safety standards, the 3rd lane would be lost.The narrow feeling I think comes from the lack of any shoulder, and having a wall on either side. 12 foot lanes is normal width, but it's also normal to have at least 4 ft on one side, preferably more.
I question whether bicycle/pedestrian accommodations should ever be part of a bridge that is that long and that high above the water.
^ There comes a point where crossing demand vs. ferry supply becomes cost-ineffective compared to a fixed bridge. The Bay Bridge is very much in that category.
Do you honestly think anyone would want to take a ferry when a bridge is so much faster and doesn't involve waiting for the boat? I honestly avoid ferries unless I need to use one to clinch something, as they're a major hassle and time penalty to deal with.^ There comes a point where crossing demand vs. ferry supply becomes cost-ineffective compared to a fixed bridge. The Bay Bridge is very much in that category.
Base load vis-a-vis peak load, like with power generation. Reserve ferry service for the peak loads. Don't build the base load (bridge) for a few summertime weekends when it goes under-utilized the rest of the year.
There's about to be a nice little timeout for you two if you don't knock off baiting each other and taking the bait.In our e-mails a number of times I have affirmed my efforts to tone things down with Sprjus4, just 2 days ago the last time.
The WWB path is over a 6,100 foot long bridge that is about 90 feet high. It is an easy walk. Alexandria and National Harbor are at either end, major urban areas.Quote from: BeltwayI question whether bicycle/pedestrian accommodations should ever be part of a bridge that is that long and that high above the water.The same question was asked about the WWB path. It's become quite popular since completion.
I would expect a bike/ped path on any new Bay Bridge to get used. Perhaps not much by pedestrians (aside from longer-distance runners), but it would certainly get used by bikes, especially if folks between Annapolis and Kent Island would no longer have to hop in a car to bike the Baltimore & Annapolis and Cross Island trails and the path along Route 8.
No, you are both poking at each other, and both denying it. Therefore, you are both guilty. I refuse to accept either of your entreaties.There's about to be a nice little timeout for you two if you don't knock off baiting each other and taking the bait.In our e-mails a number of times I have affirmed my efforts to tone things down with Sprjus4, just 2 days ago the last time.
Has he made any such efforts? He started the argument in this thread, off topic from the Bay Bridge.
Do you honestly think anyone would want to take a ferry when a bridge is so much faster and doesn't involve waiting for the boat? I honestly avoid ferries unless I need to use one to clinch something, as they're a major hassle and time penalty to deal with.^ There comes a point where crossing demand vs. ferry supply becomes cost-ineffective compared to a fixed bridge. The Bay Bridge is very much in that category.
Base load vis-a-vis peak load, like with power generation. Reserve ferry service for the peak loads. Don't build the base load (bridge) for a few summertime weekends when it goes under-utilized the rest of the year.
A vehicular ferry that carries more than 2,000 per day is rare indeed, especially over that distance.Do you honestly think anyone would want to take a ferry when a bridge is so much faster and doesn't involve waiting for the boat? I honestly avoid ferries unless I need to use one to clinch something, as they're a major hassle and time penalty to deal with.I'm going to wager a guess here and say that even with a ferry service for peak times, it wouldn't significantly alleviate anything either time-wise or congestion-wise. Of course, the Bay Bridge isn't technically in the DC metro area, and it connects to the very rural Eastern Shore, so of course he'd be against it.
Quote from: BeltwayI question whether bicycle/pedestrian accommodations should ever be part of a bridge that is that long and that high above the water.
The same question was asked about the WWB path. It's become quite popular since completion.
I would expect a bike/ped path on any new Bay Bridge to get used. Perhaps not much by pedestrians (aside from longer-distance runners), but it would certainly get used by bikes, especially if folks between Annapolis and Kent Island would no longer have to hop in a car to bike the Baltimore & Annapolis and Cross Island trails and the path along Route 8.
A better comparison might be the Ravenel Bridge in Charleston SC. They built a separated bike/walk path and it gets good use despite the length and height.
The Tappen Zee Bridge replacement is a better, and closer example IMO, about 4 miles between each end, and mostly smaller towns on each side, not a major urban area with a river going thru it, like Charleston.Still, I think it's a different clientele. People come up the Hudson for scenery and recreation all the time. The Walkway Over the Hudson is over a mile long between access points and gets plenty of use. The GWB is even longer between access points and same deal. So I think there's more of a market up here. There's no comparable long bridge in Maryland. Maybe the Wilson Bridge, which is nearer to DC and gets sparse (but nonzero) traffic. Ultimately, I would only consider a path on the Chesapeake if the residents on either side, particularly the east, indicated a desire to make use of it.
The new bridge features a shared-use path.
Still, I think it's a different clientele. People come up the Hudson for scenery and recreation all the time. The Walkway Over the Hudson is over a mile long between access points and gets plenty of use. The GWB is even longer between access points and same deal. So I think there's more of a market up here. There's no comparable long bridge in Maryland. Maybe the Wilson Bridge, which is nearer to DC and gets sparse (but nonzero) traffic. Ultimately, I would only consider a path on the Chesapeake if the residents on either side, particularly the east, indicated a desire to make use of it.
That is my take on it as well. Generally knowing that area, on the face of it I am skeptical of the Bay Bridge. But perhaps RE/T groups may show otherwise. We shall see.FTFY
The Tappen Zee Bridge replacement is a better, and closer example IMO, about 4 miles between each end, and mostly smaller towns on each side, not a major urban area with a river going thru it, like Charleston.Still, I think it's a different clientele. People come up the Hudson for scenery and recreation all the time. The Walkway Over the Hudson is over a mile long between access points and gets plenty of use. The GWB is even longer between access points and same deal. So I think there's more of a market up here. There's no comparable long bridge in Maryland. Maybe the Wilson Bridge, which is nearer to DC and gets sparse (but nonzero) traffic. Ultimately, I would only consider a path on the Chesapeake if the residents on either side, particularly the east, indicated a desire to make use of it.
The new bridge features a shared-use path.
Okay, now I think you're trolling. Traffic engineering includes pedestrians and bicyclists.That is my take on it as well. Generally knowing that area, on the face of it I am skeptical of the Bay Bridge. But perhaps RE/T groups may show otherwise. We shall see.FTFY
Likely any proposals would not include a multi-use path initially, but RE/T groups would demand they add one.
Do you honestly think anyone would want to take a ferry when a bridge is so much faster and doesn't involve waiting for the boat? I honestly avoid ferries unless I need to use one to clinch something, as they're a major hassle and time penalty to deal with.^ There comes a point where crossing demand vs. ferry supply becomes cost-ineffective compared to a fixed bridge. The Bay Bridge is very much in that category.
Base load vis-a-vis peak load, like with power generation. Reserve ferry service for the peak loads. Don't build the base load (bridge) for a few summertime weekends when it goes under-utilized the rest of the year.
I'm going to wager a guess here and say that even with a ferry service for peak times, it wouldn't significantly alleviate anything either time-wise or congestion-wise. Of course, the Bay Bridge isn't technically in the DC metro area, and it connects to the very rural Eastern Shore, so of course he'd be against it.
Do you honestly think anyone would want to take a ferry when a bridge is so much faster and doesn't involve waiting for the boat? I honestly avoid ferries unless I need to use one to clinch something, as they're a major hassle and time penalty to deal with.^ There comes a point where crossing demand vs. ferry supply becomes cost-ineffective compared to a fixed bridge. The Bay Bridge is very much in that category.
Base load vis-a-vis peak load, like with power generation. Reserve ferry service for the peak loads. Don't build the base load (bridge) for a few summertime weekends when it goes under-utilized the rest of the year.
I'm going to wager a guess here and say that even with a ferry service for peak times, it wouldn't significantly alleviate anything either time-wise or congestion-wise. Of course, the Bay Bridge isn't technically in the DC metro area, and it connects to the very rural Eastern Shore, so of course he'd be against it.
Agree that the bridge is not in the D.C. area. However, due to growth in Queen Anne's County, Maryland, it is now in the Baltimore region, and Queen Anne's County participates in the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB), the metropolitan planning organization for Baltimore and surrounding counties.
The bridge does not (as of Second Quarter 2019) show as one of the most congested sections of the regional highway network, but I think the data from Third Quarter 2019 may tell a different story.
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Rehab Spawns Big BackupsThat is a horrible article for ENR and really lowers my esteem for them. There are no technical details as to how any possible measures could alleviate congestion, and that's basically the entire article right there. Am I missing something?
October 23, 2019
https://www.enr.com/articles/48000-chesapeake-bay-bridge-rehab-spawns-big-backups
Maryland is taking emergency measures to alleviate extensive congestion resulting from deck replacement work on the William Preston Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, which carries U.S. Routes 50 and 301 across the Chesapeake Bay. Begun in late September, the two-year, $27-million replacement of a deteriorated lane on the toll bridge’s 4.3-mile westbound span has caused peak travel time backups on both sides of up to 14 miles, according to media reports. In addition to removing toll barriers, the state is working with contractor Wagman Heavy Civil to explore the use of alternate milling methods and overlay materials, establishing multiple work zones and other measures to accelerate the project.
. . . . . . . .
I drove across it yesterday. Much of the length of the right lane has been closed with a temporary concrete barrier. No congestion at about 7:00 pm.
"the state is working with contractor Wagman Heavy Civil to explore the use of alternate milling methods and overlay materials, establishing multiple work zones and other measures to accelerate the project."Chesapeake Bay Bridge Rehab Spawns Big BackupsThat is a horrible article for ENR and really lowers my esteem for them. There are no technical details as to how any possible measures could alleviate congestion, and that's basically the entire article right there. Am I missing something?
October 23, 2019
https://www.enr.com/articles/48000-chesapeake-bay-bridge-rehab-spawns-big-backups
Yup, that's what I was missing. The fact that they're going to send more crews to get done faster. It doesn't decrease congestion, but it decreases duration. So the article is, in fact, technically inaccurate by using the word 'congestion'."the state is working with contractor Wagman Heavy Civil to explore the use of alternate milling methods and overlay materials, establishing multiple work zones and other measures to accelerate the project."Chesapeake Bay Bridge Rehab Spawns Big BackupsThat is a horrible article for ENR and really lowers my esteem for them. There are no technical details as to how any possible measures could alleviate congestion, and that's basically the entire article right there. Am I missing something?
October 23, 2019
https://www.enr.com/articles/48000-chesapeake-bay-bridge-rehab-spawns-big-backups (https://www.enr.com/articles/48000-chesapeake-bay-bridge-rehab-spawns-big-backups)
IOW, having more than one work area section operating at a time, and considering different methods and (possibly) high early strength concrete, to speed up the project.
ENR is mainly targeted at the construction industry, so I keep that in mind when they don't post all the details I would like to see, such as more in depth analysis of how to improve traffic conditions on this project.
ENR is a decent publication for what they do, but they are not a traffic engineering magazine, so they probably need to be cautious about any analysis of such.ENR is mainly targeted at the construction industry, so I keep that in mind when they don't post all the details I would like to see, such as more in depth analysis of how to improve traffic conditions on this project.Yup, that's what I was missing. The fact that they're going to send more crews to get done faster. It doesn't decrease congestion, but it decreases duration. So the article is, in fact, technically inaccurate by using the word 'congestion'.
Yup, that's what I was missing. The fact that they're going to send more crews to get done faster. It doesn't decrease congestion, but it decreases duration. So the article is, in fact, technically inaccurate by using the word 'congestion'."the state is working with contractor Wagman Heavy Civil to explore the use of alternate milling methods and overlay materials, establishing multiple work zones and other measures to accelerate the project."Chesapeake Bay Bridge Rehab Spawns Big BackupsThat is a horrible article for ENR and really lowers my esteem for them. There are no technical details as to how any possible measures could alleviate congestion, and that's basically the entire article right there. Am I missing something?
October 23, 2019
https://www.enr.com/articles/48000-chesapeake-bay-bridge-rehab-spawns-big-backups (https://www.enr.com/articles/48000-chesapeake-bay-bridge-rehab-spawns-big-backups)
IOW, having more than one work area section operating at a time, and considering different methods and (possibly) high early strength concrete, to speed up the project.
ENR is mainly targeted at the construction industry, so I keep that in mind when they don't post all the details I would like to see, such as more in depth analysis of how to improve traffic conditions on this project.
That is a horrible article for ENR and really lowers my esteem for them. There are no technical details as to how any possible measures could alleviate congestion, and that's basically the entire article right there. Am I missing something?
1. Convert to cashless two-way tolling (when this project is complete, MDTA can look at a return to one-way toll collection).I fail to see how this would fix anything. It's the only crossing. If they raise the tolls or go to two-way, it's strictly to maximize revenue. It's not going to "maximize vehicular throughput".
2. Charge higher tolls during hours when congestion is especially severe. Not to minimize traffic, not to maximize revenue, but to maximize vehicular throughput.
1. Convert to cashless two-way tolling (when this project is complete, MDTA can look at a return to one-way toll collection).I fail to see how this would fix anything. It's the only crossing. If they raise the tolls or go to two-way, it's strictly to maximize revenue. It's not going to "maximize vehicular throughput".
2. Charge higher tolls during hours when congestion is especially severe. Not to minimize traffic, not to maximize revenue, but to maximize vehicular throughput.
Vickrey’s solution—higher tolls at peak times—would have obviated the need for many new highway-widening projects because many drivers, faced with tolls that reflected the true cost of such projects, would instead use carpools or buses. Those left would enjoy relatively uncongested roads but would pay for them. Vickrey even suggested a futuristic technology that has become standard: “equipping all cars with an electronic identifier.” As early as 1948, Vickrey suggested pricing solutions for hotels and airlines that look a lot like the “yield management” that modern airlines practice.
1. Convert to cashless two-way tolling (when this project is complete, MDTA can look at a return to one-way toll collection).I fail to see how this would fix anything. It's the only crossing. If they raise the tolls or go to two-way, it's strictly to maximize revenue. It's not going to "maximize vehicular throughput".
2. Charge higher tolls during hours when congestion is especially severe. Not to minimize traffic, not to maximize revenue, but to maximize vehicular throughput.
Managing traffic with variable-rate tolling is proven to work in a variety of highway corridors, including the MDTA's own MD-200 (InterCounty Connector) and the Transurban HOV/toll lanes in Northern Virginia. Unless there is a crash or other incident, these run free-flow even morning and afternoon peak commute periods.One major difference - those corridors have free alternatives - I-95 GP lanes in the case of Transurban's privatized profit-generating lanes, and I-270, I-495, and I-95 in the case of MD-200. Spiking the tolls up to "manage flow" in reality just kicks more vehicles off the toll lanes and dumps them into the free lanes increasing congestion and choking the GP lanes further and giving the high-toll payers the easy seamless drive.
Depending on how high, it could spread the traffic out over more timespan, pricing some of the vehicles out of the highest volume hours.1. Convert to cashless two-way tolling (when this project is complete, MDTA can look at a return to one-way toll collection).I fail to see how this would fix anything. It's the only crossing. If they raise the tolls or go to two-way, it's strictly to maximize revenue. It's not going to "maximize vehicular throughput".
2. Charge higher tolls during hours when congestion is especially severe. Not to minimize traffic, not to maximize revenue, but to maximize vehicular throughput.
How many vehicles are using E-ZPass vs. how many are paying cash? IIRC, it's not a high-speed option for the toll booths going east. You still have to slow down pretty significantly to go through the barrier. I'd be more in favor of eliminating the tolls entirely during the work duration. You'd still have to slow down to get through the toll booths, but maybe not as slow.
Managing traffic with variable-rate tolling is proven to work in a variety of highway corridors, including the MDTA's own MD-200 (InterCounty Connector) and the Transurban HOV/toll lanes in Northern Virginia. Unless there is a crash or other incident, these run free-flow even morning and afternoon peak commute periods.One major difference - those corridors have free alternatives - I-95 GP lanes in the case of Transurban's privatized profit-generating lanes, and I-270, I-495, and I-95 in the case of MD-200. Spiking the tolls up to "manage flow" in reality just kicks more vehicles off the toll lanes and dumps them into the free lanes increasing congestion and choking the GP lanes further and giving the high-toll payers the easy seamless drive.
With the bridge, it's the -only- crossing. Do you suggest spiking the tolls will incentivise drivers to take I-95 to DE-1 to US-301 South instead? You'd have to make that toll pretty damn high to clear congestion and deter that traffic load to the point it's free-flowing. But of course, even if that was reality, it would only choke the free alternative, I-95, DE-1, and US-301 further. That's the issue with the whole variable pricing concept with no cap. It gives priority and beneficial flow to high-toll payers and seems good in theory, but really it chokes the people who refuse to pay an absurdly high rate. And if you're solely focused on getting that variable-priced lane moving free-flow, it only works as I said above on corridors that have an ideal free alternative - US-301 / US-50 does not.
Higher tolls in peak demand times will cause some people to shift travel to a time when demand is lower, as Beltway points out. Does not matter if there are alternative routes available or not.
Not to mention that it might encourage traffic bypassing I-95 via US 301 to stay on I-95.
Higher tolls in peak demand times will cause some people to shift travel to a time when demand is lower, as Beltway points out. Does not matter if there are alternative routes available or not.
It would be helpful if regional VMS signs would broadcast a message warning of high peak congestion and how to avoid it.
Not to mention that it might encourage traffic bypassing I-95 via US 301 to stay on I-95.
Or they could continue up I-97 to Baltimore (whether via US-50 to I-97 or via MD-3 to I-97, doesn't much matter) and rejoin I-95 there while still avoiding the DC area.
I have been using DE-1/US-301/US-50 to/from the Capital Beltway on my last few NC trips. Besides the lower tolls, its simply a more relaxed ride that doesn't add any additional time to the trip. What Delaware giveth with the new US-301 Bypass, Maryland promptly took away with the Bay Bridge construction it seems.In two years it will be done.
Were backups this bad during the last re-decking project back in 2002-03? Looking at my photos, they had the left lane closed back then.The lane closed will vary as they redeck the other lanes.
Plus the times I've driven in the DC/MD/DE corridor, the worst delays on I-95 were actually north of Baltimore.
Not sure about the congestion, but obviously the volumes would have been considerably lower 17 years ago.
Not sure about the congestion, but obviously the volumes would have been considerably lower 17 years ago.May be moreseo a case where daily and seasonal variability has changed rather than overall volumes. The Automated Traffic Recorder at the toll booth shows an average of about 68.4K in 2002, and about 73.5K in 2018. That's not a significant overall increase.
Not sure about the congestion, but obviously the volumes would have been considerably lower 17 years ago.May be moreseo a case where daily and seasonal variability has changed rather than overall volumes. The Automated Traffic Recorder at the toll booth shows an average of about 68.4K in 2002, and about 73.5K in 2018. That's not a significant overall increase.
I wasn't necessarily referring to overall volumes. The Bay Bridge peaks always have been highly seasonal and weekend oriented. That 8% growth in AADT could be undergirded by double that on weekends, and that would be quite significant on a facility that is already near capacity at those times.
In the four Maryland Eastern Shore counties (Queen Anne's, Kent, Caroline and Talbot) that are closest to the bridge landing, there has been an increase of over 11,000 in estimated population between 2011 and 2018. Not all have gained population (Kent and Talbot have declined to some extent), but in aggregate the population is growing.The MD-404 widening projects were completed in July 2018, so now the highway is 4-lanes divided between US-50 at Wye Mills and MD-16 east of Denton.
Not all of that population is licensed to drive, nor does all of it commute across the Bay, but some of it does. And even small increase in traffic (and especially recurring commuter travel) can have a big impact on traffic congestion.
In Kent County, Delaware and Sussex County, Delaware, the combined population grew by over 42,000. Based on the number of Delaware tags I have seen on U.S. 50 between Washington, D.C. and Anne Arundel County, Maryland during peak commute times, some of those people are commuting to and from employment in the D.C. area.
I'm sure a few people do it for the DE tax benefits, just like PA commuters to NYC.In Kent County, Delaware and Sussex County, Delaware, the combined population grew by over 42,000. Based on the number of Delaware tags I have seen on U.S. 50 between Washington, D.C. and Anne Arundel County, Maryland during peak commute times, some of those people are commuting to and from employment in the D.C. area.
Per Google Maps...
Middletown-Warwick Rd. (the former US 301) and Main St. in Middletown: 85.5 miles
DE 8 and DE 15 in Dover to New Carrollton Metro: 81.9 miles
DE 14 and US 113 in Milford to New Carrollton Metro: 84.6 miles
The Circle in Georgetown to New Carrollton Metro: 94.7 miles
ixnay
One my coworkers in downtown Richmond commuted from Hampton for over 20 years, that is 76 miles, and as the driver of a van pool it took about 1:30 each way for him.For Hampton Roads, there’s a decent amount of people who commute the 60 mile drive between Elizabeth City and Norfolk daily (about 14,000 AADT on US-17 which slowly rises each year), mostly for the lower costs of living in N.C. This number will only keep growing as Elizabeth City expands.
For Hampton Roads, there’s a decent amount of people who commute the 60 mile drive between Elizabeth City and Norfolk daily (about 14,000 AADT on US-17 which slowly rises each year), mostly for the lower costs of living in N.C. This number will only keep growing as Elizabeth City expands.N.C. commuters come from a variety of places, from an arc from south of Franklin all the way to the coast, many of them living closer to the border than Elizabeth City. Crossing the border at US-258, US-13, VA-32, VA-168, as well, and some secondary roads.
I've heard of it. I only know of one direct example: someone who commutes from Camden DE to Washington every day. The other example I know is one of is the wife of one of my former coworkers. They live in Downtown Dover (husband worked in Dover), but they had another place on Kent Island so she could commute to DC.I'm sure a few people do it for the DE tax benefits, just like PA commuters to NYC.In Kent County, Delaware and Sussex County, Delaware, the combined population grew by over 42,000. Based on the number of Delaware tags I have seen on U.S. 50 between Washington, D.C. and Anne Arundel County, Maryland during peak commute times, some of those people are commuting to and from employment in the D.C. area.
Per Google Maps...
Middletown-Warwick Rd. (the former US 301) and Main St. in Middletown: 85.5 miles
DE 8 and DE 15 in Dover to New Carrollton Metro: 81.9 miles
DE 14 and US 113 in Milford to New Carrollton Metro: 84.6 miles
The Circle in Georgetown to New Carrollton Metro: 94.7 miles
ixnay
I've heard of it. I only know of one direct example: someone who commutes from Camden DE to Washington every day. The other example I know is one of is the wife of one of my former coworkers. They live in Downtown Dover (husband worked in Dover), but they had another place on Kent Island so she could commute to DC.I'm sure a few people do it for the DE tax benefits, just like PA commuters to NYC.In Kent County, Delaware and Sussex County, Delaware, the combined population grew by over 42,000. Based on the number of Delaware tags I have seen on U.S. 50 between Washington, D.C. and Anne Arundel County, Maryland during peak commute times, some of those people are commuting to and from employment in the D.C. area.
Per Google Maps...
Middletown-Warwick Rd. (the former US 301) and Main St. in Middletown: 85.5 miles
DE 8 and DE 15 in Dover to New Carrollton Metro: 81.9 miles
DE 14 and US 113 in Milford to New Carrollton Metro: 84.6 miles
The Circle in Georgetown to New Carrollton Metro: 94.7 miles
ixnay
(1) No state income tax in Delaware.
(1) No state income tax in Delaware.
Actually, no state sales tax in Delaware. Delaware actually has a fairly high state income tax to make up for it.
many of them living closer to the border than Elizabeth City.They may live "closer to the border" but that doesn't mean they're closer to Hampton Roads. For instance, US-258 at the Virginia line to Downtown Norfolk is 52 miles, whereas US-17 from Elizabeth City to Downtown Norfolk is 40 miles.
Of the gateways to/from North Carolina, the largest for commuters is by far VA-168. Moyock, which is right over the state line, has been growing significantly over the past decade, and it's drawn significant numbers of commuters per day. Elizabeth City is farther, but it too has been growing significantly, and it too has drawn significant numbers of commuters per day.The Newport News shipyards have thousands of employees, and heading due south of there would oriented on the corridors of VA-32 and US-258.
Of the border crossings, the traffic counts are as follows -I count 19 secondary road crossings as well, east of the US-258 crossing. While each would carry less than a typical primary highway, they would all add up.
1. VA-168 - 26,000 AADT
2. US-17 - 14,000 AADT
3. US-258 - 5,800 AADT
4. US-13 - 5,400 AADT
5. VA-32 - 3,800 AADT
One of the major problems with VA-168 is that 26,000 AADT utilizes the 4-lane divided highway into the state, but at the toll road, 16,000 AADT opts to take 2-lane Battlefield Blvd to avoid the toll, where only 10,000 AADT stays on the toll road, even with the 75-cent commuter toll. Congestion on Battlefield Blvd is a significant issue. The toll road definitely has the capacity to handle all 26,000 AADT, but it would have to be toll-free to make that happen.
I don't see that as a problem at all. If people don't like the congestion, they can pay the toll. No need to do anything else with the infrastructure.
Of the border crossings, the traffic counts are as follows -
1. VA-168 - 26,000 AADT
2. US-17 - 14,000 AADT
3. US-258 - 5,800 AADT
4. US-13 - 5,400 AADT
5. VA-32 - 3,800 AADT
One of the major problems with VA-168 is that 26,000 AADT utilizes the 4-lane divided highway into the state, but at the toll road, 16,000 AADT opts to take 2-lane Battlefield Blvd to avoid the toll, where only 10,000 AADT stays on the toll road, even with the 75-cent commuter toll. Congestion on Battlefield Blvd is a significant issue. The toll road definitely has the capacity to handle all 26,000 AADT, but it would have to be toll-free to make that happen.
How much of the VA-168/NC-168 traffic is commuters, so how much of that AADT is due to weekend peaks for traffic for the Outer Banks, a popular travel destination?According to VDOT's traffic counts, the AAWT (Average Annual Weekday Traffic) is 25,000 at the state line, then north of the split, it's 16,000 on Battlefield Blvd, and 9,600 on the toll road. North of Hillcrest Pkwy when the toll road ends, the AAWT spikes from 9,600 to 34,000.
I don't see that as a problem at all. If people don't like the congestion, they can pay the toll. No need to do anything else with the infrastructure.VA-168 Business or Battlefield Blvd is intended as a local roadway, and with the Hickory High School / Hickory Middle School complex right in the middle, there's a -significant- amount of local traffic that uses the roadway daily. Issue is, when you mix this with thru traffic, it creates significant congestion and lengthy delays, most notably at the signals in front of the school, Centerville Tpke, and Benefit Rd. Almost daily during PM rush hour, there's at least a 2-mile backup southbound from the VA-168 / Hillcrest Pkwy interchange along Hillcrest Pkwy & Battlefield Blvd South down to the Centerville Tpke traffic load. During the AM rush hour, due to the heavy amount of local traffic heading into the school complex from the north, the long amount of green time given to northbound commuter toll-avoiding traffic results in lengthy southbound backups into the school complex taking 10-15 minutes to even enter going through at least 3-5 full signal phases.
Of the gateways to/from North Carolina, the largest for commuters is by far VA-168. Moyock, which is right over the state line, has been growing significantly over the past decade, and it's drawn significant numbers of commuters per day. Elizabeth City is farther, but it too has been growing significantly, and it too has drawn significant numbers of commuters per day.The Newport News shipyards have thousands of employees, and heading due south of there would oriented on the corridors of VA-32 and US-258.Of the border crossings, the traffic counts are as follows -I count 19 secondary road crossings as well, east of the US-258 crossing. While each would carry less than a typical primary highway, they would all add up.
1. VA-168 - 26,000 AADT
2. US-17 - 14,000 AADT
3. US-258 - 5,800 AADT
4. US-13 - 5,400 AADT
5. VA-32 - 3,800 AADT
One of the major problems with VA-168 is that 26,000 AADT utilizes the 4-lane divided highway into the state, but at the toll road, 16,000 AADT opts to take 2-lane Battlefield Blvd to avoid the toll, where only 10,000 AADT stays on the toll road, even with the 75-cent commuter toll. Congestion on Battlefield Blvd is a significant issue. The toll road definitely has the capacity to handle all 26,000 AADT, but it would have to be toll-free to make that happen.
How much of the VA-168/NC-168 traffic is commuters, so how much of that AADT is due to weekend peaks for traffic for the Outer Banks, a popular travel destination?
I don't see that as a problem at all. If people don't like the congestion, they can pay the toll. No need to do anything else with the infrastructure.VA-168 Business or Battlefield Blvd is intended as a local roadway, and with the Hickory High School / Hickory Middle School complex right in the middle, there's a -significant- amount of local traffic that uses the roadway daily. Issue is, when you mix this with thru traffic, it creates significant congestion and lengthy delays, most notably at the signals in front of the school, Centerville Tpke, and Benefit Rd. Almost daily during PM rush hour, there's at least a 2-mile backup southbound from the VA-168 / Hillcrest Pkwy interchange along Hillcrest Pkwy & Battlefield Blvd South down to the Centerville Tpke traffic load. During the AM rush hour, due to the heavy amount of local traffic heading into the school complex from the north, the long amount of green time given to northbound commuter toll-avoiding traffic results in lengthy southbound backups into the school complex taking 10-15 minutes to even enter going through at least 3-5 full signal phases.
The issue here isn't the fact that thru traffic (a majority of it new people to the area moving into Moyock knowing full-well there's a toll road on the main route to/from Hampton Roads) has to pay, it's the fact that the heavy traffic load detouring around the toll places a burden on local traffic who has no desire / need to use the toll road.
Their definition of AAWDT: Average Annual Weekday Traffic. The estimate of typical traffic over the period of one year for the days between Monday through Thursday.How much of the VA-168/NC-168 traffic is commuters, so how much of that AADT is due to weekend peaks for traffic for the Outer Banks, a popular travel destination?According to VDOT's traffic counts, the AAWT (Average Annual Weekday Traffic) is 25,000 at the state line, then north of the split, it's 16,000 on Battlefield Blvd, and 9,600 on the toll road. North of Hillcrest Pkwy when the toll road ends, the AAWT spikes from 9,600 to 34,000.
The heavy peak tourist traffic is mostly on summer Saturdays along with some on Sunday, where the toll is $8 one-way. Those counts are not factored into the AAWT count, only AADT, which there's not much of a difference.
The daily traffic congestion on VA Bus 168 in Chesapeake is just another example of why toll roads HURT traffic congestion, and not help it.Generally, I'd say it actually has remained static.
I grew up in Caroline County, Maryland (near Preston). My Dad was a Bay Bridge commuter for 20 yrs (1985-2005), and still in 2019 I have a few friends that live in Caroline and even a couple in Dorchester County that make the commute across the bridge. Most work in the medical field and have jobs near Annapolis. The pay is a lot higher on the west side of the bridge. Lower living costs on east side.I know someone who has a brother who lived in Linkwood in Dorchester County, and had a job at Shock Trauma in Baltimore. He would drive up U.S. 50 through Cambridge, Easton and to the U.S. 301 merge, over the Bay Bridge, through Annapolis, and then I-97 to I-695 to MD-295.
My Dad was able to make it work for 20 yrs, because he was a firefighter, (most firefighters on the Eastern Shore are volunteer position)
He left home in Preston by 5-5:15 AM, and was across the bridge by 6 AM. (beating rush hour) He was never late in 20 yrs of work.
He left work at 7 AM in the morning, most of the traffic was heading the opposite way and he was home by 8:15-8:30.
He only worked 2-3 days a week, but these were 24 hours shifts, one shift on, two shift off, usually they followed that pattern.
I know someone who has a brother who lived in Linkwood in Dorchester County, and had a job at Shock Trauma in Baltimore. He would drive up U.S. 50 through Cambridge, Easton and to the U.S. 301 merge, over the Bay Bridge, through Annapolis, and then I-97 to I-695 to MD-295.
I can relate to Eastern Shore volunteer firefighters because here in Harford County, to the northeast of Baltimore, it's all volunteer as well.
The perennial choke point for travelers headed to the region’s beaches or Maryland’s Eastern Shore will soon require less stopping, with the hope of keeping traffic moving to, over and past the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.
Starting in the next few weeks, drivers will see demolition of some of the existing toll booths to create wider lanes at the bridge plaza and to get ready for all-electronic tolling.
Since the autumn beginning of construction to replace the bridge’s deck surface in the right lane of the westbound span, the Maryland Department of Transportation has instructed drivers to keep moving through the poll plaza, even if they don’t have E-ZPass.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan asked MDTA to begin cashless tolling at the bridge as soon as possible.
With only five months to go until Memorial Day weekend’s flood of summer traffic, the state transportation agency faces a substantial challenge in avoiding gridlock, in the midst of the two-year construction project.
Starting the evening of Sunday, Jan. 12, toll lanes 3, 4 and 5 will permanently close to allow workers to dismantle the toll booths in those lanes.
On the Eastern Shore, crews will prepare to install overhead tolling gantries between the bridge and MD-8 on Kent Island. Once the overhead system is in place, drivers will be tolled as they get off the bridge.
While all-electronic tolling is expected to be in place by summer, MDTA asks drivers to remain alert, as the toll plaza will remain an active work zone until 2022, when demolition and roadway reconstruction will be complete.
Maryland moves on Bay Bridge toll booth demolition to head off summer gridlock (https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/01/maryland-moves-on-bay-bridge-toll-booth-demolition-to-head-off-summer-gridlock/)QuoteWhile all-electronic tolling is expected to be in place by summer, MDTA asks drivers to remain alert, as the toll plaza will remain an active work zone until 2022, when demolition and roadway reconstruction will be complete.
Maryland moves on Bay Bridge toll booth demolition to head off summer gridlock (https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/01/maryland-moves-on-bay-bridge-toll-booth-demolition-to-head-off-summer-gridlock/)QuoteWhile all-electronic tolling is expected to be in place by summer, MDTA asks drivers to remain alert, as the toll plaza will remain an active work zone until 2022, when demolition and roadway reconstruction will be complete.
This should enable easy two-way tolling given that the toll plaza will be removed. Is that the plan to have two-way tolling?
All-electronic tolling would not cost more to implement if it was two-way.No reason to. There aren't substantial alternatives for most motorists to easily avoid the toll. Also, to add tolling to the WB direction would more than double the cost of tolling and collection.This should enable easy two-way tolling given that the toll plaza will be removed. Is that the plan to have two-way tolling?QuoteWhile all-electronic tolling is expected to be in place by summer, MDTA asks drivers to remain alert, as the toll plaza will remain an active work zone until 2022, when demolition and roadway reconstruction will be complete.
Maryland moves on Bay Bridge toll booth demolition to head off summer gridlock (https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/01/maryland-moves-on-bay-bridge-toll-booth-demolition-to-head-off-summer-gridlock/)QuoteWhile all-electronic tolling is expected to be in place by summer, MDTA asks drivers to remain alert, as the toll plaza will remain an active work zone until 2022, when demolition and roadway reconstruction will be complete.
This should enable easy two-way tolling given that the toll plaza will be removed. Is that the plan to have two-way tolling?
No reason to. There aren't substantial alternatives for most motorists to easily avoid the toll. Also, to add tolling to the WB direction would more than double the cost of tolling and collection.
Maryland moves on Bay Bridge toll booth demolition to head off summer gridlock (https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/01/maryland-moves-on-bay-bridge-toll-booth-demolition-to-head-off-summer-gridlock/)So does this mean that if I stash the EZPass, I can drive for free? (plus the cost of getting down there)QuoteThe perennial choke point for travelers headed to the region’s beaches or Maryland’s Eastern Shore will soon require less stopping, with the hope of keeping traffic moving to, over and past the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.
Starting in the next few weeks, drivers will see demolition of some of the existing toll booths to create wider lanes at the bridge plaza and to get ready for all-electronic tolling.
Since the autumn beginning of construction to replace the bridge’s deck surface in the right lane of the westbound span, the Maryland Department of Transportation has instructed drivers to keep moving through the poll plaza, even if they don’t have E-ZPass.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan asked MDTA to begin cashless tolling at the bridge as soon as possible.
With only five months to go until Memorial Day weekend’s flood of summer traffic, the state transportation agency faces a substantial challenge in avoiding gridlock, in the midst of the two-year construction project.
Starting the evening of Sunday, Jan. 12, toll lanes 3, 4 and 5 will permanently close to allow workers to dismantle the toll booths in those lanes.
On the Eastern Shore, crews will prepare to install overhead tolling gantries between the bridge and MD-8 on Kent Island. Once the overhead system is in place, drivers will be tolled as they get off the bridge.
While all-electronic tolling is expected to be in place by summer, MDTA asks drivers to remain alert, as the toll plaza will remain an active work zone until 2022, when demolition and roadway reconstruction will be complete.
All-electronic tolling would not cost more to implement if it was two-way.No reason to. There aren't substantial alternatives for most motorists to easily avoid the toll. Also, to add tolling to the WB direction would more than double the cost of tolling and collection.This should enable easy two-way tolling given that the toll plaza will be removed. Is that the plan to have two-way tolling?QuoteWhile all-electronic tolling is expected to be in place by summer, MDTA asks drivers to remain alert, as the toll plaza will remain an active work zone until 2022, when demolition and roadway reconstruction will be complete.
For the tolling, simply charge one half of the one-way toll.
I disagree. The marginal cost to the state of doing two-way all-electronic toll collection is not that high.
Theres 3 lanes EB. They would need about 7 transponder readers. 3 for the lanes, 2 in between the three lanes, then 2 the shoulders. If they toll westbound, they will need up to seven transponder readers as well. Plus for each side of the road they would need the gantries over the roadway, toll cameras to look for who didn't have transponders, and other related equipment. Right there your entire setup cost to have doubled. Then of course they need ongoing maintenance when you have transponders over both roadways, so that's double the maintenance. And when people don't have transponders, that's double the violations that need to be researched and double the number of violation notices that are mailed out.So what is the cost of that, maybe $100,000? About the cost of signalizing an intersection.
Theres 3 lanes EB. They would need about 7 transponder readers. 3 for the lanes, 2 in between the three lanes, then 2 the shoulders. If they toll westbound, they will need up to seven transponder readers as well. Plus for each side of the road they would need the gantries over the roadway, toll cameras to look for who didn't have transponders, and other related equipment. Right there your entire setup cost to have doubled. Then of course they need ongoing maintenance when you have transponders over both roadways, so that's double the maintenance. And when people don't have transponders, that's double the violations that need to be researched and double the number of violation notices that are mailed out.So what is the cost of that, maybe $100,000? About the cost of signalizing an intersection.
Tiny cost compared to one of their major rehab projects, which for the westbound span is $27 million.
The only reason for converting to one-way tolling was to double the number of toll booths on one roadway without adding new toll booths. That happened back before electronic tolling was available, when the capacity of a toll booth was considerably lower, and where toll plaza congestion was a serious problem.
With all-electronic tolling, toll booths are not needed, and full freeway service will be in effect.
In such a setup, one-way tolling is a flawed pricing process. Each direction should be tolled at half of the one-way rate.
So what is your general estimate?So what is the cost of that, maybe $100,000? About the cost of signalizing an intersection.Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.
Tiny cost compared to one of their major rehab projects, which for the westbound span is $27 million.
There are many other trip pairs other than going to I-95 in northern Delaware.QuoteIn such a setup, one-way tolling is a flawed pricing process. Each direction should be tolled at half of the one-way rate.I can't help but notice you continually avoid my remarks regarding the lack of alternatives, making 2 way tolling useless because nearly the same number of vehicles will be making round trips anyway.
So tell me...why would Maryland want to revert to two-way tolling again?Because that is how people use the bridge and most any toll facility.
So what is your general estimate?So what is the cost of that, maybe $100,000? About the cost of signalizing an intersection.Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.
Tiny cost compared to one of their major rehab projects, which for the westbound span is $27 million.
The amount of hardware and construction for a major intersection is similar.
There are many other trip pairs other than going to I-95 in northern Delaware.QuoteIn such a setup, one-way tolling is a flawed pricing process. Each direction should be tolled at half of the one-way rate.I can't help but notice you continually avoid my remarks regarding the lack of alternatives, making 2 way tolling useless because nearly the same number of vehicles will be making round trips anyway.
I go to Easton and St. Michaels which are roughly 30 miles east of the Bay Bridge.
What about all the other trip pairs, including to the Atlantic beaches?
So tell me...why would Maryland want to revert to two-way tolling again?Because that is how people use the bridge and most any toll facility.
The only reason for one-way tolling in 1991 was because due to increased traffic volumes, they needed twice as many toll booths and didn't want to incur the financial and environmental costs of expanding the toll plaza, and that was the in the day before electronic tolling existed.
All electronic tolling gives the ability to eliminate the toll plaza entirely, making it a seamless high-speed freeway.
Either 95/695/895 in the Baltimore area: $24.00Yikes.
I-95 in Maryland: $48.00
You shouldn't largely grab numbers out of the air.Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.So what is your general estimate?
The amount of hardware and construction for a major intersection is similar.
It wouldn't cost $100 million to replace the bridge.
Where do you get all these cost estimates from?
What "cost estimate"? He largely grabs numbers out of the air.
You and your buddy seem to think that it is my job to prove your $50 million and $100 million figures wrong.
So what is your estimate?You shouldn't largely grab numbers out of the air.Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.So what is your general estimate?
The amount of hardware and construction for a major intersection is similar.
My comments were in reply to posts regarding truckers shunning the I-95 tolls in favor of utilizing 301/50.Only trucks and only between northern Delaware and Washington?
Since apparently we have ADD and constantly move the goalposts around, apparently we're now talking vacations or commuting.
There would be no toll shunning if we're simply going from an area relatively close to one side of this bridge to an area relatively close to another side of this bridge. This bridge is the only reasonable option.
But doesn't make it worthwhile to implement two-way tolling. In general, the only reason you've come up with for two way tolling is...because they can.Maybe the time has come to eliminate that truck imbalance, where supposedly NB trucks are being discouraged to use the Bay Bridge and SB trucks are being encouraged to. Let them stay on I-95 and the I-x95s, Baltimore is well served by them.
So what is your estimate?My point is you got on me for producing an estimate "out of the air", and the Alps for questioning your response that provided a low-ball figure for an urban 12-lane bridge replacement.
He seemed to be thinking that it would be crushingly expensive to install two-way AET.
Let them stay on I-95 and the I-x95s, Baltimore is well served by them.Per jeffandnicole...
I also mentioned about Alternatives. In order for people to avoid this toll, they have two choices. Either go all the way down to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, and pay a higher toll. Or go north and cross over 40 or I-95, both of which have eastbound tolls. So there's no real avoiding the tollway here eastbound. Plus those distances to drive would takes someone a few hours to detour just to avoid this toll. So anyone driving one direction across the bridge, will most likely driving the other direction as well, unless their travels wouldn't take them both ways to begin with.
Thus, there is no reason to charge for both directions, when a single direction captures most of the two-way traffic anyway
Not to intercede between a good old-fashioned bashing, just pointing out that the impetus behind pretty much every one way tolling scheme everywhere was to reduce delays by providing more booths in the tolled direction and no impediment in the other. AET eliminates that concern, so in theory, every road should eventually return to 2-way tolling.
Which 12-lane urban bridge was that?So what is your estimate? He seemed to be thinking that it would be crushingly expensive to install two-way AET.My point is you got on me for producing an estimate "out of the air", and the Alps for questioning your response that provided a low-ball figure for an urban 12-lane bridge replacement.
I don't have any estimates for this particular project, but it wouldn't be expensive likely.That was my whole point, from the beginning.
OK, so the toll plaza near the Susquehanna River is one-way NB as well? Answer=yes.Let them stay on I-95 and the I-x95s, Baltimore is well served by them.Per jeffandnicole...
Northbound I-95 is $81.00 vs. Northbound US-301 being $35.00 for a trucker.
Southbound I-95 is $33.00 vs. Southbound US-301 being $11.00 for a trucker.
Baltimore and I-95 all together already has traffic issues, no need to add to it by shoving more truck traffic through there, not that much would change to it anyways.I-695 East has capacity to spare.
If you want more truck traffic on I-95, eliminate the $48.00 northbound toll at the Susquehanna River.Or convert to AET and break it in half and have $24 each way.
Not to intercede between a good old-fashioned bashing, just pointing out that the impetus behind pretty much every one way tolling scheme everywhere was to reduce delays by providing more booths in the tolled direction and no impediment in the other. AET eliminates that concern, so in theory, every road should eventually return to 2-way tolling.
^^^^I believe two-way is coming to the Verrazano shortly. The bigger wild-card is what PA will do at the Hudson crossings.
Whereas I can only think of two trips I’ve ever done one-way over the Bay Bridge, one this past June on my way north to Cooperstown and Toronto, the other in March 1991 when I took the scenic route home from Virginia Beach. All my other trips have been two-way, usually on the same day and frequently for golf trips but at least once for a funeral. But I guess that’s a difference between living in the area versus coming from elsewhere. As long as it’s not a summer weekend, a day trip to the Eastern Shore is a trivial distance for me.
The Bay Bridge is certainly distinguishable from, say, the Verrazzano, where New York should absolutely re-institute two-way tolling (with appropriate discount for Staten Island residents) because of the problems caused by people going through the city to avoid the ridiculous westbound toll, which I believe is now $19. My aunts, who live in Breezy Point, were down here two weeks ago and seemed to think the odds are two-way tolling there will return soon. But the Bay Bridge is a totally different situation from the Verrazzano.
Which 12-lane urban bridge was that?I-264 over Witchduck Rd in Virginia Beach.
I-695 East has capacity to spare.And adds 10 minutes and 10 miles. Might as well just take US-301 at that point.
Or convert to AET and break it in half and have $24 each way.Right now, it’s $46 more expensive northbound and $22 more expensive southbound to take I-95 vs. US-301. If you converted both the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay Bridge tolls to two-way by splitting them, it would make both directions $34 more expensive to take I-95 vs. US-301. That would still make I-95 more expensive than US-301 including making I-95 southbound even more expensive.
^^^^I believe two-way is coming to the Verrazano shortly. The bigger wild-card is what PA will do at the Hudson crossings.
Whereas I can only think of two trips I’ve ever done one-way over the Bay Bridge, one this past June on my way north to Cooperstown and Toronto, the other in March 1991 when I took the scenic route home from Virginia Beach. All my other trips have been two-way, usually on the same day and frequently for golf trips but at least once for a funeral. But I guess that’s a difference between living in the area versus coming from elsewhere. As long as it’s not a summer weekend, a day trip to the Eastern Shore is a trivial distance for me.
The Bay Bridge is certainly distinguishable from, say, the Verrazzano, where New York should absolutely re-institute two-way tolling (with appropriate discount for Staten Island residents) because of the problems caused by people going through the city to avoid the ridiculous westbound toll, which I believe is now $19. My aunts, who live in Breezy Point, were down here two weeks ago and seemed to think the odds are two-way tolling there will return soon. But the Bay Bridge is a totally different situation from the Verrazzano.
So what is your general estimate?So what is the cost of that, maybe $100,000? About the cost of signalizing an intersection.Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.
Tiny cost compared to one of their major rehab projects, which for the westbound span is $27 million.
There are many other trip pairs other than going to I-95 in northern Delaware.QuoteIn such a setup, one-way tolling is a flawed pricing process. Each direction should be tolled at half of the one-way rate.I can't help but notice you continually avoid my remarks regarding the lack of alternatives, making 2 way tolling useless because nearly the same number of vehicles will be making round trips anyway.
I go to Easton and St. Michaels which are roughly 30 miles east of the Bay Bridge.
What about all the other trip pairs, including to the Atlantic beaches?
Not to intercede between a good old-fashioned bashing, just pointing out that the impetus behind pretty much every one way tolling scheme everywhere was to reduce delays by providing more booths in the tolled direction and no impediment in the other. AET eliminates that concern, so in theory, every road should eventually return to 2-way tolling.
Let's say the museum decides to charge a two-way rate. They reduce the admission price to $5. You walk around. When you leave, suddenly there additional employees there, with computer equipment, desks, etc, charging you $5 to exit. Why bother?I would not logically make a comparison to a museum fee. You pay for a day use of the museum.
That's the same thing with tolling. You're eventually going to return anyway. Sure, there's a few that may take an alternate route, but most people are going to return the same way they came.
A large project with a low bid of $77,309,013.13.So working way too long on this, it's hard to find agencies who actually release item-by-item bid results. So I went to the NJTA for their overall construction of Exit 125, which including, among many other things, a new exit for electronic tolling. The Bid results are here: https://www.njta.com/media/2245/p300229.pdf. You'll see, if you zoom in, that full sign structures, which are needed in advance of the electronic tolling point, are in the $150,000 - $250,000 range. And that's not even the actual tolling point.Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.So what is your general estimate?
Let's say the museum decides to charge a two-way rate. They reduce the admission price to $5. You walk around. When you leave, suddenly there additional employees there, with computer equipment, desks, etc, charging you $5 to exit. Why bother?I would not logically make a comparison to a museum fee. You pay for a day use of the museum.
That's the same thing with tolling. You're eventually going to return anyway. Sure, there's a few that may take an alternate route, but most people are going to return the same way they came.
Paying in that manner for a bridge would be paying on entry to the bridge and then paying again when you exit the bridge on the same trip.
There are some widely space returns. Someone goes to the beaches and then comes back a week later.
There are non-linear journeys such as one-sided, three-sided, four-sided, etc. Someone goes from Richmond to Easton to Philadelphia to Baltimore and back to Richmond. Someone goes from Richmond to Virginia Beach to Easton and back to Richmond. A college student goes from Cambridge to University of Maryland and spends the whole semester there. Those are all one-way uses.
Hundreds of other possibilities.
Two-way tolling matches the actual use of the bridge in every case. One-way tolling does not in numbers of cases.A large project with a low bid of $77,309,013.13.So working way too long on this, it's hard to find agencies who actually release item-by-item bid results. So I went to the NJTA for their overall construction of Exit 125, which including, among many other things, a new exit for electronic tolling. The Bid results are here: https://www.njta.com/media/2245/p300229.pdf. You'll see, if you zoom in, that full sign structures, which are needed in advance of the electronic tolling point, are in the $150,000 - $250,000 range. And that's not even the actual tolling point.Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.So what is your general estimate?
It would be rather difficult to separate out the items for electronic tolling.
How about this? I spent 10 minutes looking at about 10 news articles and MDTA releases about this project, and none of them even mentioned the cost of this. I find that frustrating as it would be the best way to estimate the cost of adding AET for one direction; but it also hints that the cost is low enough that it is not a major expenditure for MDTA.
Then there are a variety of sign structures already in place that may be usable for readers and informational signs.
So what if I was off even by a factor of 10, and it would cost $1 million? Still a small cost in the overall scheme building, operating, rehabbing and maintaining the Bay Bridge.
My conclusion was that MDTA did not publicize the figure and that it wasn't enough for them to feel the need to report.How about this? I spent 10 minutes looking at about 10 news articles and MDTA releases about this project, and none of them even mentioned the cost of this. I find that frustrating as it would be the best way to estimate the cost of adding AET for one direction; but it also hints that the cost is low enough that it is not a major expenditure for MDTA.I spent, no kidding, a few hours on this. Couldn't find anything related to Maryland bid results. Best I could do was this. I knew it wouldn't be enough for you, I knew you would read and dissect it, and even when I tried to find the specific line items to present an some sort of proof to show your $100k figure was lowballed, it still isn't enough for you.
Then there are a variety of sign structures already in place that may be usable for readers and informational signs.
So what if I was off even by a factor of 10, and it would cost $1 million? Still a small cost in the overall scheme building, operating, rehabbing and maintaining the Bay Bridge.
But I'm glad you spent 10 minutes. And what conclusion did you come up with? Another random number, which you seem to like to toss out.
Oh well. Guess you can write a few dozen letters to Maryland telling them to two-way toll the bridge because some dude may travel to Easton and not return on the bridge.It would take traffic origin and destination studies and traffic engineering analysis to produce hard numbers on the number of non-linear trips.
My conclusion was that MDTA did not publicize the figure and that it wasn't enough for them to feel the need to report.How about this? I spent 10 minutes looking at about 10 news articles and MDTA releases about this project, and none of them even mentioned the cost of this. I find that frustrating as it would be the best way to estimate the cost of adding AET for one direction; but it also hints that the cost is low enough that it is not a major expenditure for MDTA.I spent, no kidding, a few hours on this. Couldn't find anything related to Maryland bid results. Best I could do was this. I knew it wouldn't be enough for you, I knew you would read and dissect it, and even when I tried to find the specific line items to present an some sort of proof to show your $100k figure was lowballed, it still isn't enough for you.
Then there are a variety of sign structures already in place that may be usable for readers and informational signs.
So what if I was off even by a factor of 10, and it would cost $1 million? Still a small cost in the overall scheme building, operating, rehabbing and maintaining the Bay Bridge.
But I'm glad you spent 10 minutes. And what conclusion did you come up with? Another random number, which you seem to like to toss out.
Private sector news sources didn't either, unless I missed them.My conclusion was that MDTA did not publicize the figure and that it wasn't enough for them to feel the need to report.Or it was overly embarrassing.
Depending on the State, everything is available on the net.
Shunpiking is a real thing. People certainly take advantage of a close bridge in the free direction and then go around the long way to avoid the "double toll" that does exist because of one way tolling. I can't speak specifically of the Bay Bridge, but I can tell you countless times that I have done a round trip on other crossings by going the free direction on a toll bridge and then a slightly longer but free shunpike in the other direction.
Examples that I have used:
PA-NJ crossings are tolled westbound. Use the closest one eastbound, and use a cheaper or free bridge westbound. Especially for a long distance trip like NYC-DC via Philly, it may not be so hard to make use of the Trenton Makes Bridge to avoid a toll.
NJ-NY crossings are tolled eastbound. In my experience, the first free Hudson crossing is really far away in Upstate. But, the Tappan Zee is cheaper than the PA crossings and the Bear Mtn Bridge is even cheaper. So if you are headed somewhere north of the city (Westchester, Connecticut), you may want to use the Bear Mtn Bridge eastbound and take the GWB westbound.
And of course, I generally use the Verrazano as part of my trips from DC to Queens, but almost never on the way back because of the huge tolls. You can get from Queens to NJ completely free by travelling on an East River bridge to Manhattan and then using GWB or one of the tunnels into NJ. This is well known and is one of the reasons that they are exploring two way tolling on the Verrazano as well as Manhattan congestion pricing.
By converting those to two-way tolls, you can charge everyone and not give anyone the benefit of the freebie.
In my experience, the first free Hudson crossing is really far away in Upstate.
So, there's a few people that will take detours and add time to their travels to avoid a one way toll. But for most, they're going to just suck it up and pay. Which means for most, they'll be going over the toll bridge twice anyway, which still make it more economical to the bridge authorities to charge for a single toll.So what is "most," maybe 2/3?
So, there's a few people that will take detours and add time to their travels to avoid a one way toll. But for most, they're going to just suck it up and pay. Which means for most, they'll be going over the toll bridge twice anyway, which still make it more economical to the bridge authorities to charge for a single toll.So what is "most," maybe 2/3?
One-way tolling was a creation of increasing traffic volumes that blah blah blah.
The additional costs to the agency are minimal and two-way tolling properly matches how the facility is used.
Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.3/3.So, there's a few people that will take detours and add time to their travels to avoid a one way toll. But for most, they're going to just suck it up and pay. Which means for most, they'll be going over the toll bridge twice anyway, which still make it more economical to the bridge authorities to charge for a single toll.So what is "most," maybe 2/3?
Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.3/3.So, there's a few people that will take detours and add time to their travels to avoid a one way toll. But for most, they're going to just suck it up and pay. Which means for most, they'll be going over the toll bridge twice anyway, which still make it more economical to the bridge authorities to charge for a single toll.So what is "most," maybe 2/3?
Are you the "beneficiary" of one-way tolling?
Like I said it would require origin-and-destination traffic engineering studies, to determine exact numbers.Site documentation, other than "Well, a few times I drove one way and came home the other way".Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.So what is "most," maybe 2/3?3/3.
The AADT in the area around the bridge is in excess of 70,000. I tried finding out how much of that is EB/WB, but unable to do so.
In terms of the thread here, I have gone down 1 to 301 to 50 and crossed toll free on the CBB. But, hey, I live in NJ. If I'm down in the DC area, I have to come back somehow. Unless I drive at least 30 minutes out of my way to take the US 1 bridge, I'm paying a NB/EB toll. And that toll is in MD. So Maryland is getting my money somehow.That's you. Other persons and their individual trips and journeys can be quite different.
So to answer your question, no, I'm not a beneficiary of one way tolling. I'm a beneficiary of a toll agency not wasting my toll money by spending money operating twice the equipment to do the same job the current equipment is doing.The removal of the toll plaza, enabled by implementation AET, would remove huge costs for roadway maintenance, toll booth maintenance, electronic and electrical systems maintenance, and staffing costs.
Like I said it would require origin-and-destination traffic engineering studies, to determine exact numbers.Site documentation, other than "Well, a few times I drove one way and came home the other way".Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.So what is "most," maybe 2/3?3/3.
The AADT in the area around the bridge is in excess of 70,000. I tried finding out how much of that is EB/WB, but unable to do so.
Given the inter-state and regional highway configurations and the one-way tolling, the Bay Bridge is probably in the 65-70% range, certainly not 100% as you claim.In terms of the thread here, I have gone down 1 to 301 to 50 and crossed toll free on the CBB. But, hey, I live in NJ. If I'm down in the DC area, I have to come back somehow. Unless I drive at least 30 minutes out of my way to take the US 1 bridge, I'm paying a NB/EB toll. And that toll is in MD. So Maryland is getting my money somehow.That's you. Other persons and their individual trips and journeys can be quite different.So to answer your question, no, I'm not a beneficiary of one way tolling. I'm a beneficiary of a toll agency not wasting my toll money by spending money operating twice the equipment to do the same job the current equipment is doing.The removal of the toll plaza, enabled by implementation AET, would remove huge costs for roadway maintenance, toll booth maintenance, electronic and electrical systems maintenance, and staffing costs.
Two-way AET costs would be minimal compared to those costs.
Elimination of the Bay Bridge toll plaza also by my calculations returns 4 acres of paved land back to the natural environment.
Personal attack.Honestly, you're crazy.Like I said it would require origin-and-destination traffic engineering studies, to determine exact numbers.Site documentation, other than "Well, a few times I drove one way and came home the other way".Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.So what is "most," maybe 2/3?3/3.
The AADT in the area around the bridge is in excess of 70,000. I tried finding out how much of that is EB/WB, but unable to do so.
Given the inter-state and regional highway configurations and the one-way tolling, the Bay Bridge is probably in the 65-70% range, certainly not 100% as you claim.In terms of the thread here, I have gone down 1 to 301 to 50 and crossed toll free on the CBB. But, hey, I live in NJ. If I'm down in the DC area, I have to come back somehow. Unless I drive at least 30 minutes out of my way to take the US 1 bridge, I'm paying a NB/EB toll. And that toll is in MD. So Maryland is getting my money somehow.That's you. Other persons and their individual trips and journeys can be quite different.So to answer your question, no, I'm not a beneficiary of one way tolling. I'm a beneficiary of a toll agency not wasting my toll money by spending money operating twice the equipment to do the same job the current equipment is doing.The removal of the toll plaza, enabled by implementation AET, would remove huge costs for roadway maintenance, toll booth maintenance, electronic and electrical systems maintenance, and staffing costs.
Two-way AET costs would be minimal compared to those costs.
Elimination of the Bay Bridge toll plaza also by my calculations returns 4 acres of paved land back to the natural environment.
You have cut and trimmed my quotes, then said things I didn't say.I said things that I said, it is all above.
I've answered questions, only for you to constantly move the bar and goalposts.I am merely making comments about the Bay Bridge tolling, I am not looking at anyone's "goalposts."
You've yet to site any documentation for anything you speak of.Pot-kettle.
In the end - guess what? The toll agency isn't implementing 2 way tolls. Go to their meetings and tell them to, then bicker and argue with them non-stop about this issue when they tell you basically what they've told me.Not yet, but the issue will come forward, as it is with the Verrazano Bridge.
I said 2/3, you replied 3/3, hence my 100% remark, still above.
3/3. For the most part, most people coming over will be returning the same direction. There's gonna be a few that won't, but there's also a few that will pay the toll that won't return the same way.
You cited your trips across the Delaware River, I said other people have different trips and journeys.
Are you the "beneficiary" of one-way tolling?
You've yet to site any documentation for anything you speak of.Pot-kettle.
The AADT in the area around the bridge is in excess of 70,000. I tried finding out how much of that is EB/WB, but unable to do so.
So working way too long on this, it's hard to find agencies who actually release item-by-item bid results. So I went to the NJTA for their overall construction of Exit 125, which including, among many other things, a new exit for electronic tolling. The Bid results are here: https://www.njta.com/media/2245/p300229.pdf. You'll see, if you zoom in, that full sign structures, which are needed in advance of the electronic tolling point, are in the $150,000 - $250,000 range. And that's not even the actual tolling point. Yes, prices in NJ are going to be higher than most other states, including MD, but just this one sign structure alone blows out your cute $100,000 estimiate for the entire project. Look at all the conduit and other electrical items needed as well. There's a lot that goes into these projects...way more than just a few transponders and something to hold them overhead.
In the end - guess what? The toll agency isn't implementing 2 way tolls. Go to their meetings and tell them to, then bicker and argue with them non-stop about this issue when they tell you basically what they've told me.Not yet, but the issue will come forward, as it is with the Verrazano Bridge.
I'm honestly surprised at how many people will shunpike just for the sake of shunpiking. At some point, there are diminished returns for not paying the toll. Mileage, gas, and time savings should all factor into account. I'd never consider getting off I-65 in downtown Louisville and using the US 31 bridge, and having to put up with all the traffic lights and congestion, just for the sake of not paying a toll. Nor would I drive out of my way via I-64 or I-264 and then I-64, and then I-265.Likewise you could 'shunpike' the Baltimore tunnels by taking the I-695 Beltway west around the city. What is 15 more miles if you are on a 200+ mile trip?
I'm honestly surprised at how many people will shunpike just for the sake of shunpiking. At some point, there are diminished returns for not paying the toll. Mileage, gas, and time savings should all factor into account. I'd never consider getting off I-65 in downtown Louisville and using the US 31 bridge, and having to put up with all the traffic lights and congestion, just for the sake of not paying a toll. Nor would I drive out of my way via I-64 or I-264 and then I-64, and then I-265.Here in Chesapeake, VA, a 6 mile freeway built parallel to a rural 2-lane highway charges $8 one-way during peak season and saves at best 5-10 minutes. Not something I'd ever pay. Many avoid it, though many from out of state bound to the Outer Banks to spend thousands of dollars have no issue putting down $8 each way. During off-peak, it's $3 one-way, and all the time, including peak, it's only $0.75 one-way if you're enrolled in the discount program. It costs $3 per month for discounted tolls every trip. Very good savings for a commuter, however many still avoid it on a daily basis. The expressway has 33,000 AADT north of the toll, 10,000 AADT on the toll portion, and 28,000 AADT south of the toll. In the toll portion, parallel free Battlefield Blvd carries 20,000 AADT.
What is 15 more miles if you are on a 200+ mile trip?According to you, vanity.
Likewise you could 'shunpike' the Baltimore tunnels by taking the I-695 Beltway west around the city. What is 15 more miles if you are on a 200+ mile trip?
Especially when I-695 is congested as much as the tunnels.Likewise you could 'shunpike' the Baltimore tunnels by taking the I-695 Beltway west around the city. What is 15 more miles if you are on a 200+ mile trip?
it's ~15 less minutes in the car - and when I've been driving that long, I (and my passengers) want those 15 minutes more than I want to avoid the toll for the tunnel.
Also in the city, Dominion Blvd was upgraded from a 2-lane roadway with a draw bridge over the Elizabeth River to a 4-lane freeway with two fixed span bridges over the river and 3 urban interchanges, though went from a free road to a toll road at the bridges once completed, now charging up to $1.16 each way.I drove it yesterday in both directions, just to see the new highway again. Side trip branch off of I-64 which I did need I-64 for my trip. A rather low toll especially when you AET it.
You missed my sarcasm...What is 15 more miles if you are on a 200+ mile trip?According to you, vanity.
A rather low toll especially when you AET it.Agreed. The toll was originally planned to be $2.30 with an E-ZPass in the beginning, then increase annually. However, an additional $86 million in Regional Transportation Funds were made available for the project which enabled the toll to be reduced to $1.00, increasing annually. Much less expensive than the VA-168 toll, and far more valuable of a toll to pay.
Also, only the bridge over the river is tolled.A rather low toll especially when you AET it.Agreed. The toll was originally planned to be $2.30 with an E-ZPass in the beginning, then increase annually. However, an additional $86 million in Regional Transportation Funds were made available for the project which enabled the toll to be reduced to $1.00, increasing annually. Much less expensive than the VA-168 toll, and far more valuable of a toll to pay.
^^^I believe so. I think it's open 10am-5pm or something really short.
Don't they lock the gates on the entrance to the US 301 rest area when it closes, and it closes up at a very early hour, like 5 or 6 p.m.?
^^^I believe so. I think it's open 10am-5pm or something really short.
Don't they lock the gates on the entrance to the US 301 rest area when it closes, and it closes up at a very early hour, like 5 or 6 p.m.?
^^^I believe so. I think it's open 10am-5pm or something really short.
Don't they lock the gates on the entrance to the US 301 rest area when it closes, and it closes up at a very early hour, like 5 or 6 p.m.?
I was not aware of this, and this sucks.
I did note one error in my prior statement, There are no major truck stop chains in DE....once you turn off 95 to get onto DE1/US301. Technically you got the T/A and Flying J right over the state line in Elkton MD, so i could consider that serving DE truck traffic.
And once you cross the bridge into NJ there's a few truck stops as well.
But for trucks coming from Maryland via anything except 95, and headed on any route to PA, there are no major name truck stops anywhere thru Philly and back into NJ.
And once you cross the bridge into NJ there's a few truck stops as well.
But for trucks coming from Maryland via anything except 95, and headed on any route to PA, there are no major name truck stops anywhere thru Philly and back into NJ.
There is a truck stop on U.S. 301 in Centreville, Queen Anne's County, Maryland.
There is also one off of I-97 in Millersville, Anne Arundel County, Maryland (but stopping there is a detour for trucks driving the U.S. 301 corridor and wanting to cross the Chesapeake Bay on the WPL Bridge).
I was looking at bay bridge traffic cameras thru the MDOT CHART website yesterday and noticed that MDTA was quietly finished with the right-lane deck replacement project on the WB span. I think their goal had been before Memorial Day, so they might have been taking advantage of the empty roads recently to finish the project quicker.Last time I crossed the bridge, I noticed that a large length of the barriers had been removed.
WTOP reports the State cites both favorable weather and reduced traffic as the reasons for getting it done early:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/04/construction-ends-on-the-bay-bridges-westbound-span-a-year-early/
I don't have access to this comPost article, but it says that the westbound bridge now has all three lanes open.
Chesapeake Bay Bridge westbound span fully reopens ahead of schedule
Jerks … they won't even let me copy the URL. It is linked here --
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/traffic-commuting/
I don't have access to this comPost article, but it says that the westbound bridge now has all three lanes open.https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/chesapeake-bay-bridge-westbound-span-fully-reopens-ahead-of-schedule/2020/04/01/6d2b9cb8-741b-11ea-87da-77a8136c1a6d_story.html
Chesapeake Bay Bridge westbound span fully reopens ahead of schedule
Jerks … they won't even let me copy the URL. It is linked here --
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/traffic-commuting/
Repairs to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge were completed this week — more than a month ahead of schedule, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said Wednesday.
Hogan (R) said unusually light traffic due to motorists staying home amid the coronavirus pandemic helped the work be completed quickly.
The right lane of the westbound span, which has been closed since September, reopened Wednesday morning.
The project, which took seven months, was completed far ahead of its initial two-year schedule. Hogan ordered the work to be accelerated in the fall after massive traffic jams ensued on both sides of the bridge.
In addition to lighter traffic, Hogan credited round-the-clock shifts and warm weather for helping to accelerate the work. State transportation officials also have said they saved time by requiring contractors to add crews and continue work through the busy Thanksgiving travel week.
“The folks on the [Eastern] shore that were having difficulty getting back and forth, hopefully that part of the problem is behind us, and we can get on to other things,” Hogan said Wednesday on WGMD News Radio.
In a news release, Hogan added that while state officials are focused on the public health crisis, “It’s important to celebrate the reopening of the westbound right lane of the Bay Bridge because for me it represents the spirit, dedication and work ethic that will see our state through any crisis.”
Hogan has designated construction, including residential and private development, as “essential” and those workers exempt from his stay-at-home order.
The $27 million bridge project entailed replacing the concrete bridge deck in the westbound span’s right lane, which state transportation officials said had badly deteriorated to the point of becoming unsafe.
The four-mile bridge is the main crossing between the Baltimore-Washington region and the Eastern Shore, both for Eastern Shore commuters heading west for work and for eastbound beachgoers who pack it on weekends throughout the spring, summer and fall.
The repair work brought unprecedented misery, as motorists trying to get around the backups on U.S. 50 approaching the bridge jammed side roads on Kent Island. School buses were late, and local businesses said they suffered because customers and employees could not reach them.
Traffic also backed up in the Annapolis area when the westbound span could not be opened for two-way operations to accommodate late-afternoon and evening traffic headed back to the Eastern Shore.
Work remains on schedule to begin all-electronic tolling on the bridge by summer, officials said. Doing so will reduce backups by allowing all motorists to proceed without having to stop at toll booths. Motorists without an E-ZPass transponder will be mailed a bill based on a photo of their license plate.
Some work will continue in the westbound span’s center and left lanes during overnight and off-peak hours, but “minimal” traffic delays are expected, officials said. Workers also are continuing to replace overhead signal gantries on the westbound span.
The lighter traffic volumes also are allowing workers to speed up the installation of automated gates along westbound U.S. 50 on the Eastern Shore that will allow maintenance crews to start and cut off two-way traffic on the span more safely and quickly, officials said. That work will entail single-lane closures on or approaching the bridge during midday and off-peak hours.
Maryland Transportation Secretary Greg Slater commended contractors “for rising to the challenge” of finishing the work amid the coronavirus outbreak.
“This will be one less thing for Marylanders to be concerned about as we rise out of our health crisis,” Slater said.
Summer traffic congestion on the Bay Bridge can make life miserable for people who live near both ends, Kent Island on the east and the Broadneck peninsula on the west.
But state Sen. Ed Reilly thinks Friday nights are more miserable on his side of the Chesapeake Bay lately. He blames a “systematic” failure by the Maryland Transportation Authority to manage the contraflow lane — the lane set up to carry extra eastbound motorists over the westbound lane during peak travel times.
In an Aug. 4 letter, the Anne Arundel Republican called on Gov. Larry Hogan to address the Maryland Transportation Authority’s management of bridge traffic.
“This is a conscious, in my opinion, a conscious decision by the management of the Bay Bridge to benefit the Eastern Shore to the detriment of everyone else in the state heading toward the beach,” said Reilly, a Crofton Republican whose district includes the communities affected by bridge traffic.
MDTA announced yesterday that the new toll gantry on the Kent Island side is being activated on May 12th:
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/mdta-beat-another-summer-goal-bay-bridge-drivers-new-all-electronic
For what it's worth, it's been now a month and a day since crossing under the new gantry - just checked my EZ-Pass (thru the PTC) account online, and still no charge for crossing the bridge on July 11 (but all my PA Turnpike reads went thru on that trip both to and from the beach)
Baltimore Sun: Contraflow controversy at the Bay Bridge: Which side is getting the worst of summer traffic? (https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/anne-arundel/ac-cn-senator-reilly-letter-bay-bridge-contraflow-20200811-j6peyisw6nhuhmfyne7cvbqzcm-story.html)
...
Maryland transportation officials have narrowed down their options for a new crossing over the Chesapeake Bay to three plans they say will provide the most traffic relief, all which could be located at or near the original.
A new report, part of a multi-million dollar study commissioned by the Maryland Transportation Authority, found that adding a third span to the extant Chesapeake Bay Bridge between Crofton in Anne Arundel County and Queenstown in Queen Anne’s County would likely provide the most traffic relief while limiting environmental damage.
Building that third span is one of three options still under consideration. Eleven sites out of a total of 14 have been rejected, The Washington Post reported Tuesday, with all three remaining options connecting on the west with Anne Arundel County to relieve current bridge traffic.
Maryland transportation officials have rejected 11 of 14 potential sites for an additional Chesapeake Bay crossing, saying a new span must be built close to the existing bridge to provide the most traffic relief and cause less environmental damage, according to a state report released Tuesday.
The report, part of a $5 million study by the Maryland Transportation Authority since 2016, makes clear that one option — building a third span adjacent to the two there now — is the leading contender of the remaining three. The other two would be within two miles of the bridge, either to the north or south.
All three remaining options would connect on the west with Anne Arundel County, where residents already complain about bridge traffic swamping local roads. Two would connect on the eastern side with Queen Anne’s County, where the current bridge touches down, while the third would connect south of there, in Talbot County.
Washington Post: Maryland is studying three sites for a new Chesapeake Bay crossing, report says (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/maryland-is-studying-three-sites-for-a-new-chesapeake-bay-crossing-report-says/2020/09/01/36256c7e-ec7c-11ea-99a1-71343d03bc29_story.html)QuoteMaryland transportation officials have rejected 11 of 14 potential sites for an additional Chesapeake Bay crossing, saying a new span must be built close to the existing bridge to provide the most traffic relief and cause less environmental damage, according to a state report released Tuesday.QuoteThe report, part of a $5 million study by the Maryland Transportation Authority since 2016, makes clear that one option — building a third span adjacent to the two there now — is the leading contender of the remaining three. The other two would be within two miles of the bridge, either to the north or south.QuoteAll three remaining options would connect on the west with Anne Arundel County, where residents already complain about bridge traffic swamping local roads. Two would connect on the eastern side with Queen Anne’s County, where the current bridge touches down, while the third would connect south of there, in Talbot County.
Can almost guarantee that Maryland will end up just simply adding a third span to existing bridge. Best and most logical choice IMO too. No way a bridge would ever go all the way down to Talbot County. Way too far south and close to existing sanctuaries in the bay.
I’m actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.The opposition seems to be from outside RE/T groups more than anything who have never traveled the bridge.
I’m actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.The opposition seems to be from outside RE/T groups more than anything who have never traveled the bridge.
I’m actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.I didn't realize how many commuters to Baltimore and Washington are Eastern Shore residents.
I’m actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.
Can almost guarantee that Maryland will end up just simply adding a third span to existing bridge. Best and most logical choice IMO too. No way a bridge would ever go all the way down to Talbot County. Way too far south and close to existing sanctuaries in the bay.
Too much impact on the Anne Arundel County side too.
If the state wanted a crossing at a new location, it should be between Calvert County on the Western Shore and Dorchester County on the Eastern. But the distance to cross is long, and there would presumably have to be an all-new approach road on the Dorchester side from the bridge landing to U.S. 50. On the Calvert side, there would probably need to be improvements on the MD-2, MD-4 and MD-231 corridors.
So the crossing (either a long overwater crossing or a bridge-tunnel) would be expensive, as would all of the work on the approaches.
Can almost guarantee that Maryland will end up just simply adding a third span to existing bridge. Best and most logical choice IMO too. No way a bridge would ever go all the way down to Talbot County. Way too far south and close to existing sanctuaries in the bay.
Too much impact on the Anne Arundel County side too.
If the state wanted a crossing at a new location, it should be between Calvert County on the Western Shore and Dorchester County on the Eastern. But the distance to cross is long, and there would presumably have to be an all-new approach road on the Dorchester side from the bridge landing to U.S. 50. On the Calvert side, there would probably need to be improvements on the MD-2, MD-4 and MD-231 corridors.
So the crossing (either a long overwater crossing or a bridge-tunnel) would be expensive, as would all of the work on the approaches.
I think the best option is the Calvert to Dorchester County crossing. Baltimore/Annapolis traffic can use the existing Bay Bridge and DC/Northern Virginia/Southern MD can use the new span.
Building another span right next to the existing Bay Bridge is not a good idea. Let's say the new bridge has four lanes, when the new bridge hits land it has to merge those lanes back into the existing 3 lane alignment of US 50/301. So your talking about 7 lanes merging into 3, which would do nothing to solve the current traffic problems, plus all the right of way you would have to build up to fit the 4 lanes into a sensible merge point.
Build a 6 lane span from Calvert to Dorchester County, and upgrade Route 16 to a freeway until it hits US 50 just south of Cambridge. Is it expensive? Yes, but it solves the bridge traffic problem.
Can almost guarantee that Maryland will end up just simply adding a third span to existing bridge. Best and most logical choice IMO too. No way a bridge would ever go all the way down to Talbot County. Way too far south and close to existing sanctuaries in the bay.
Too much impact on the Anne Arundel County side too.
If the state wanted a crossing at a new location, it should be between Calvert County on the Western Shore and Dorchester County on the Eastern. But the distance to cross is long, and there would presumably have to be an all-new approach road on the Dorchester side from the bridge landing to U.S. 50. On the Calvert side, there would probably need to be improvements on the MD-2, MD-4 and MD-231 corridors.
So the crossing (either a long overwater crossing or a bridge-tunnel) would be expensive, as would all of the work on the approaches.
I think the best option is the Calvert to Dorchester County crossing. Baltimore/Annapolis traffic can use the existing Bay Bridge and DC/Northern Virginia/Southern MD can use the new span.
Building another span right next to the existing Bay Bridge is not a good idea. Let's say the new bridge has four lanes, when the new bridge hits land it has to merge those lanes back into the existing 3 lane alignment of US 50/301. So your talking about 7 lanes merging into 3, which would do nothing to solve the current traffic problems, plus all the right of way you would have to build up to fit the 4 lanes into a sensible merge point.
Build a 6 lane span from Calvert to Dorchester County, and upgrade Route 16 to a freeway until it hits US 50 just south of Cambridge. Is it expensive? Yes, but it solves the bridge traffic problem.
I’m actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.The opposition seems to be from outside RE/T groups more than anything who have never traveled the bridge.
I’m actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.The opposition seems to be from outside RE/T groups more than anything who have never traveled the bridge.
It's not "outside groups" doing the most complaining. It's locals. A more correct version of your comment would be "The opposition seems to be from locals who don't need to cross the bridge regularly."
I happened to be along the eastern shore of Virginia for several days and had to drive to Columbia via US 50 and the Bay Bridge on Monday. Traffic was heavy moving westbound but without delays until I was 16 miles from the crossing. It took 2.5 hours with pretty much all side roads blocked off by either barriers or police. The one VMS that actually had a message showing said the optimal crossing time was... 11 PM.To locals, that is considered adequate and no capacity expansion warranted. Cars bad.
Chestertown MD is filled with "No Bay Bridge to Kent [County]" signs. Kent County MD is a very quiet area, the entire county having only 20,000 people (half the size of Dover DE, largest city on Delmarva). US-301 is the one main road in Kent County, but Chestertown is served by MD-291 and MD-213, both presently low volume roads only serving the small population of the Eastern Shore.I’m actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.The opposition seems to be from outside RE/T groups more than anything who have never traveled the bridge.
It's not "outside groups" doing the most complaining. It's locals. A more correct version of your comment would be "The opposition seems to be from locals who don't need to cross the bridge regularly."
I guess the next questions are "don't they want relief from the traffic congestion which inevitably spills over onto local roads?"
Or does the congestion promote people stopping to visit local businesses, thereby making less congestion a bad thing?
The last time I was in Dover (8 years ago), "overdeveloped" is not a word I would have used to describe it.
SmallThe last time I was in Dover (8 years ago), "overdeveloped" is not a word I would have used to describe it.
What word would you have used?
ixnay
And living in Dover DE, where I'm surrounded by overdevelopment, I can't blame them.
Maryland officials have delayed the release of a draft study exploring where to build a third span for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, saying they had to postpone federally required public hearings due to the worsening pandemic.
The study, which analyzed the community and environmental impacts of three potential corridors for an additional span, was scheduled to be released last fall, said John Sales, spokesman for the Maryland Transportation Authority. Public hearings on the findings were scheduled for this winter.
The state was on track to meet that schedule, Sales said, until coronavirus infection rates and “associated restrictions” increased. A plan to release the findings in December also was pushed back due to climbing coronavirus cases, he said.
“Proceeding with publishing the [draft study] and scheduling public hearing would not have been a safe choice while health officials were telling Marylanders they would be safer at home,” Sales said.
^
Are the virtual public meetings not acceptable?
^
Are the virtual public meetings not acceptable?
Kentucky's been doing virtual public meetings in one form or another for a number of projects, including federally-funded ones. This may be an "err on the side of caution" move by Maryland to stave off a potential lawsuit if they move forward with the project and someone claims they weren't given an adequate chance to voice objections or offer input.
I disagree. NYSDOT has had issues with holding virtual meetings itself and has gone back and forth with FHWA on requirements that need to be met. The changing requirements from division offices have been a moving target and has caused delays in project development.^
Are the virtual public meetings not acceptable?
Kentucky's been doing virtual public meetings in one form or another for a number of projects, including federally-funded ones. This may be an "err on the side of caution" move by Maryland to stave off a potential lawsuit if they move forward with the project and someone claims they weren't given an adequate chance to voice objections or offer input.
The way many states are doing public meetings now, via zoom and online meetings, along with posting documents online, offer more access, not less.
Want to say that not everyone has access to the internet? Not everyone would have easy access to the documents either. How would they get to a place with the documents available, or an in-person public meeting? Chances are, if they could get to those places, then they could also get to a place with internet access.
Something doesn't seem right about this delay. Could be rather innocent, as in they needed more time, but blaming the pandemic at the same time they're loosing restrictions is a little baffling.
^
Are the virtual public meetings not acceptable?
Kentucky's been doing virtual public meetings in one form or another for a number of projects, including federally-funded ones. This may be an "err on the side of caution" move by Maryland to stave off a potential lawsuit if they move forward with the project and someone claims they weren't given an adequate chance to voice objections or offer input.
I disagree. NYSDOT has had issues with holding virtual meetings itself and has gone back and forth with FHWA on requirements that need to be met. The changing requirements from division offices have been a moving target and has caused delays in project development.^
Are the virtual public meetings not acceptable?
Kentucky's been doing virtual public meetings in one form or another for a number of projects, including federally-funded ones. This may be an "err on the side of caution" move by Maryland to stave off a potential lawsuit if they move forward with the project and someone claims they weren't given an adequate chance to voice objections or offer input.
The way many states are doing public meetings now, via zoom and online meetings, along with posting documents online, offer more access, not less.
Want to say that not everyone has access to the internet? Not everyone would have easy access to the documents either. How would they get to a place with the documents available, or an in-person public meeting? Chances are, if they could get to those places, then they could also get to a place with internet access.
Something doesn't seem right about this delay. Could be rather innocent, as in they needed more time, but blaming the pandemic at the same time they're loosing restrictions is a little baffling.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Having meetings does not mean there is no difficulty in getting them set up. NYSDOT has held virtual meetings and pursued other means of public outreach. Still, for projects where outreach has higher requirements, there's little question overall schedules have slipped here and there.I disagree. NYSDOT has had issues with holding virtual meetings itself and has gone back and forth with FHWA on requirements that need to be met. The changing requirements from division offices have been a moving target and has caused delays in project development.^
Are the virtual public meetings not acceptable?
Kentucky's been doing virtual public meetings in one form or another for a number of projects, including federally-funded ones. This may be an "err on the side of caution" move by Maryland to stave off a potential lawsuit if they move forward with the project and someone claims they weren't given an adequate chance to voice objections or offer input.
The way many states are doing public meetings now, via zoom and online meetings, along with posting documents online, offer more access, not less.
Want to say that not everyone has access to the internet? Not everyone would have easy access to the documents either. How would they get to a place with the documents available, or an in-person public meeting? Chances are, if they could get to those places, then they could also get to a place with internet access.
Something doesn't seem right about this delay. Could be rather innocent, as in they needed more time, but blaming the pandemic at the same time they're loosing restrictions is a little baffling.
(personal opinion emphasized)
NJDOT has some virtual meetings, and they have been extremely easy to view, and informative. And I don't have the guy next to me asking stupid questions about unrelated projects or telling NJDOT how much they suck.
DELMARVA – The Bay bridge is getting a possible third location, and some residents and Broadneck council members aren’t happy about it.
Maryland transportation officials recommended building a new Chesapeake Bay bridge at the site of the existing two spans that cross between Annapolis and Kent Island. Broadneck council members tells 47 ABC, the overall concern is that once the location is selected, no other locations will be considered.
Update on the proposed third span:QuoteDELMARVA – The Bay bridge is getting a possible third location, and some residents and Broadneck council members aren’t happy about it.
Maryland transportation officials recommended building a new Chesapeake Bay bridge at the site of the existing two spans that cross between Annapolis and Kent Island. Broadneck council members tells 47 ABC, the overall concern is that once the location is selected, no other locations will be considered.
Read more here: https://www.wmdt.com/2021/04/chesapeake-bay-bridge-may-get-a-third-location/
Update on the proposed third span:QuoteDELMARVA – The Bay bridge is getting a possible third location, and some residents and Broadneck council members aren’t happy about it.
Maryland transportation officials recommended building a new Chesapeake Bay bridge at the site of the existing two spans that cross between Annapolis and Kent Island. Broadneck council members tells 47 ABC, the overall concern is that once the location is selected, no other locations will be considered.
Read more here: https://www.wmdt.com/2021/04/chesapeake-bay-bridge-may-get-a-third-location/
"Broadneck council members tells 47 ABC, the overall concern is that once the location is selected, no other locations will be considered."
Well, yeah, that's how it generally works. What sense would it be to consider a bunch of locations, select a location, and then consider all the locations again?
Following the release of an environmental impact statement that appears to lean toward another span in Maryland to alleviate traffic over the old Chesapeake Bay Bridge, the Anne Arundel County Executive isn’t thrilled with the conclusions.
The Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study is currently in Tier 1 of its review of whether or not to construct commuting alternatives to supplement the existing bridge.
The study published its Draft Environmental Impact Statement, or DEIS, which explored four possible options and listed some of the reasons why the so-called “Corridor 7” alternative, which includes a new span, has its advantages.
Corridor 7, which would put a new span right next to the existing Bay Bridge running through Annapolis at Sandy Point State Park, is recommended by the Maryland Transportation Authority.
The choices also included not building anything new at all.
In a five-page written response, Anne Arundel County Executive Steuart Pittman’s office thinks the DEIS failed when it came to producing accurate traffic assumptions, purpose and need, sufficient environmental impact of a Corridor 7 project. Pittman’s office said researchers did not dig deep enough into a no-build option.
A NEW Automated Lane Closure System is coming to the Bay Bridge! This system will enhance the current manual process by providing automated implementation and discontinuation of contraflow. The automated lane closure system will be in place in Fall 2022. https://t.co/XukRLQmVMy pic.twitter.com/QdUPyZTGOh
— MDTA (@TheMDTA) July 7, 2021
I actually just saw a few of those on StreetView earlier today (they have some fairly recent images dated for 11/21). With the GSV you can kind of make out what it's gonna be like when they are done on both sides of the bridge. And some of the median foundations on the highway EB approaching the bridge from a few miles out - a lot of them are "tagged" as either "OH-[number]" or "G-[number]" (and I believe the numbers ascended/descended oppositely depending on if they were "G" or "OH". It had me curious as to what that indicates.
They also seem to be starting to erect the gantries on either approaching roadway (I saw the foundations for them in the median and on the sides in person last summer on the way to/from the beach).
During my trips to the beach last summer, some of the overhead lane control gantries on the 3-lane span were replaced with monotube structures. The GSV showed a few more have been since then, though not in any real systemic fashion. I wonder if this whole project will have them all replaced on both spans, or if they're just replacing ones that are maybe deteriorating to the point of needing replaced on just an as-needed basis.
?cxt=HHwWgMCy2Z6F_Y0qAAAABay Crossing Study Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision approved. FHWA officially approves Corridor 7, the corridor containing the Bay Bridge, as the selected corridor alternative. Complete details here https://t.co/wKaTh2wZa2 #MDOTDelivers pic.twitter.com/QYW3bxZC4h
— MDTA (@TheMDTA) April 21, 2022
So now I'm thinking they're going to make the crossing 3-2-3? It would make the most sense given there would be no additional crossings north or south (until CBBT) of here.
Over the course of the last few months, however, officials from 12 of Maryland’s 23 counties have quietly embraced a new concept for easing congestion at the Bay Bridge: a new span, with eight or more lanes, to replace the existing spans.
The 12 counties, along with summer destination Ocean City, have passed resolutions or sent letters of support for the concept. Some jurisdictions have directed their letters to Hogan (R) and/or transportation secretary James F. Ports Jr. Others have sent letters of support directly to the Queen Anne’s County Commission, where the idea appears to have originated.
Gov. Larry Hogan said Friday that the state is launching a “critical” $28 million study that will not only look into the new crossing, but also examine traffic solutions for the entire 22-mile corridor from the Severn River Bridge to the U.S. 50/301 split.
?cxt=HHwWgMC4qbauos4qAAAAI’m in Queen Anne’s County to make an announcement regarding the future of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.
— Governor Larry Hogan (@GovLarryHogan) June 10, 2022
Watch live: https://t.co/4knqxth5pP