AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-Atlantic => Topic started by: 74/171FAN on June 18, 2009, 08:56:47 AM

Title: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 18, 2009, 08:56:47 AM
Victims of the fatal crash last summer possibly sueing the MDTA saying that the bridge isn't up to contemporary standards  http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4215 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4215)  Sounds like another ridiculous lawsuit to me :-/
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on June 18, 2009, 10:09:29 PM
Imagine what a victory for the plaintiff would portend.  If every road had to be brought up to exact modern standards, we would be out trillions.  Not to mention, what are standards exactly?  The only standards out there are for Interstates, and this one ends shy of the bridge in Annapolis.  Clearly baseless.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Hellfighter on June 19, 2009, 12:06:34 AM
This guy = fail.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Sykotyk on June 19, 2009, 02:17:28 AM
I don't think standards are the issue, if the bolts were deteriorated (and the DOT knew) then there is an argument regardless of what year the bridge was built.

But, I'm less likely to believe there being particular bolts there is going to stop a vehicle upwards of 80,000 pounds going 40-50mph from smashing through and hurtling to his death.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alex on April 11, 2011, 12:25:09 PM
Film explores history of Chesapeake Bay Bridge (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110411/NEWS/110411033/-1/7daysarchives/Film-explores-history-Chesapeake-Bay-Bridge)
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on May 12, 2011, 11:58:40 AM
More recently, MdTA is having a Finance Committee meeting today to hear proposals about how to increase revenue by $88 million (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/2011/05/toll_increase_proposal_expecte.html) (the article says $70M, but it's been tweeted since then that they're now looking at $88M).  One of the proposals to come out of it will increase Bay Bridge tolls (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/2011/05/proposal_bay_bridge_toll_would.html) to $5 later this fall, and to $8 on New Year's 2013.  This basically represents a doubling and tripling, respectively, of today's toll which is $2.50.

A related proposal would effectively eliminate the Hatem Bridge decal system (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/2011/05/hatem_bridge_commuters_likely.html) for local residents/commuters.  Currently they can buy a decal for $10/yr for unlimited use.  The proposal eliminates that and requires them to get an EZPass (if they don't have one already) and pay $36/yr for unlimited Hatem Bridge use.

The revenue increase is intended to address the agency's bond status and also for increased maintenance.

The full proposal will have to go through a series of public hearings, but approval from the Maryland General Assembly is not required.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Michael in Philly on May 13, 2011, 10:36:48 PM
Froggie (et al.), I just went to DC today, and I picked up the Baltimore Sun when I stopped at a Wawa near Edgewood for a sandwich.  The top story in the Sun - and on WTOP early this afternoon - was the proposed toll increases.  I haven't read the Sun story yet; and the WTOP story mentioned, intriguingly, discounts for E-ZPass holders, but gave no details of that.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Jennice45 on August 25, 2011, 01:02:38 PM
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:
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 25, 2011, 01:14:37 PM
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:

if those two bridges are not an option, then via Newark appears to be the only way to get to Ocean City as well.  take your usual route to Dover, then keep heading down DE-1.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Mr_Northside on August 25, 2011, 01:55:19 PM
Unless you use a different mode of transportation....  If you can find a regional flight into Salisbury, and if there is a place to rent cars around there, you could do that. 
Maybe charter a boat?

But if car is the way it's gotta be, then it seems "via Newark" is as good as it's gonna get.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Jennice45 on August 25, 2011, 02:50:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alex on August 25, 2011, 04:26:07 PM
Thanks for the quick tip.  I figured as much.  does anyone know if there are any scary bridges that going through newark?

You will still have to cross the Millard J. Tydings Bridge across the Susquehanna River. The span is pretty high above the river, but a lot shorter than the Bay Bridge or the Bridge-Tunnel aforementioned.

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland095/i-095_nb_exit_093_03.jpg)

Also, it is about long how of a trip from Richmond this way?

Richmond is about 200 miles from Newark, Ocean City is about 100 miles south of Newark.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Ian on August 25, 2011, 05:02:51 PM
If you're taking DE 1 south from Newark, you also have to cross the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Bridge, although that's a more newer bridge (1990's completion date):
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-mJ_L_kXbd9s/S-Y_ONLa-NI/AAAAAAAAb6Y/wQpyfMLdcvI/s640/IMG_5720.JPG)
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on August 25, 2011, 09:21:58 PM
At least in my opinion, the US 40 Hatem Bridge is lower to the water and therefore less "scary" than the Tydings bridge (I-95) over the Susquehanna, but it's a truss, meaning it has large beams going up around you. I don't know if you'd find that a problem or not. Of all the bridges across the C&D Canal, the DE 1 bridge is probably the least scary.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 1995hoo on August 26, 2011, 09:19:39 AM
If you're scared of bridges and you take I-95 over the Tydings Bridge as mentioned above, you'll want to drive in the center lane of the three over the bridge because of crosswinds. Driving in the center lane allows you more space to either side if you feel like the winds are buffeting your car.

An alternative through that area that does not involve high bridges takes you northwest to US-1 and across the river on the Conowingo Dam. But that might bother you more than a bridge!
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on August 26, 2011, 09:44:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 26, 2011, 11:21:08 AM
-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).

how did that ever happen?  I'm sure there was a time when people could walk to the Delmarva without any bridges being in place - that is the definition of peninsula, as opposed to island.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: NE2 on August 26, 2011, 11:30:36 AM
The C&D Canal turned it into an island in the 1820s.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Jennice45 on August 26, 2011, 03:03:45 PM
I am not afraid of every bridge.  I don't mind the verazono. Althought, I not a big fan of the Goethals bridge (if they still call it that).  The woodrow wilson or delaware memorial isn't bad.  I don't like the bay bridge because it is super high.  I thought I hit a plane the few times I have gone up there.  It is also pretty thin.

@ Froggie.  As far as I know, you are right.  You have to cross some kind of bridge to get to the ocean's.  Although, is that true getting off jersey tpke heading to Atlantic City.  I can't remember.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Ian on August 26, 2011, 04:45:15 PM
IIRC, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge has an escort service for those with a phobia of heights and bridges.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Michael in Philly on August 26, 2011, 10:32:07 PM
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.


If you're going up to the top of the bay, you could always use US 1 over Conowingo Dam.  Which also has no toll.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Jennice45 on August 27, 2011, 07:25:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Michael in Philly on August 27, 2011, 08:09:03 PM
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.

US 1 (in case you're new around here :-) ) is the older route along the east coast that passes through a lot of the same cities as 95 does.  Between Baltimore and Philadelphia, it's a bit inland of 95; it is NOT a freeway in the area I'm talking about, but if you have issues with bridges....  It crosses the Susquehanna going over a dam, a little south of the Maryland-Pennsylvania line.  In fact the water upstream of the dam is nearly at eye level if you're driving across it.  (Downstream, there's a drop.)  It's a bit narrow though.  You might look at it on Google Street View.

The quickest way to get to it might be to exit 95 at exit 77 in Maryland, then take Md. 24 north to US 1, then follow the sign that says "US 1 north - Philadelphia".  Once you're across the dam, you can take Md. 222 back down to 95, or there are other options.

Here's the dam:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.661214,-76.173706&spn=0.059864,0.109692&z=13&vpsrc=6

By the way, as I type, channel 3 in Philadelphia reports the Bay Bridge has been closed.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: NE2 on August 27, 2011, 08:12:43 PM
Best way to US 1 is probably MD 24. But no point in going there if you use the Millard Tydings Bridge on I-95.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Jennice45 on August 27, 2011, 09:07:50 PM
Michael in Philly:
I did see the bay bridge is closed.  It should be permanently....loL.  this is for a conference next month.  I like 95 and want to take that to Ocean City.  Mapquest always takes me across the bay bridge and goin up US 50.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: NE2 on August 27, 2011, 09:30:26 PM
Mapquest always takes me across the bay bridge and goin up US 50.
You can drag the route: http://mapq.st/qOIVLH
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 24, 2013, 10:19:35 AM
Delmarvanow.com: OPINION: Chesapeake Bay Bridge's future begins now - Time to figure out what needs to be done, when (http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20130319/OPINION01/303190052/OPINION-Chesapeake-Bay-Bridge-s-future-begins-now)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2013, 05:12:35 PM
WBOC-TV: Safety Improvements for the Bay Bridge (http://www.wboc.com/story/22013270/safety-improvements-for-the-bay-bridge)

Quote
Safety improvements are coming to the westbound span of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

Quote
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.

Quote
A painted buffer and rumble strips will be added between the westbound left and center lanes.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2016, 11:37:13 PM
WBOC-TV: Maryland Lawmakers Start Planning for a Third Bay Bridge Span (http://www.wboc.com/story/31238121/maryland-lawmakers-start-planning-for-a-third-bay-bridge-span)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
"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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on February 17, 2016, 07:30:04 AM
Of course, Hogan decided to cut a big source of revenue that the state could have started saving for a 3rd span...
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: AlexandriaVA on February 17, 2016, 11:38:47 AM
Of course, Hogan decided to cut a big source of revenue that the state could have started saving for a 3rd span...

Gotta please the base voters!
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 17, 2016, 11:55:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: abefroman329 on February 17, 2016, 02:39:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Rothman on February 17, 2016, 03:00:47 PM
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.

...in favor of private business (http://www.kentislandexpress.com/policies-procedures.htm) ($30 a pop).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 17, 2016, 03:15:29 PM
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)?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on February 17, 2016, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster
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)?

No.  It's physically impossible to reconfigure the existing spans to Interstate standard, ESPECIALLY the eastbound span.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2016, 04:04:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster
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)?

No.  It's physically impossible to reconfigure the existing spans to Interstate standard, ESPECIALLY the eastbound span.

I disagree, in a sense.

The solution is relatively simple (but not cheap) - build a new span with a deck wide enough for three or four lanes with shoulder to be used mostly by eastbound traffic, then (normally) run both of the existing spans for westbound traffic, leaving one of the existing travel lanes open on each as a shoulder.

The early drawings of the proposed replacement Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge (U.S. 301) has shoulders on both sides, in addition to a multi-use path. 

The parallel (now southbound) trestled roadway  of the CBBT (U.S. 13) has a shoulder (and even some emergency pull-off areas), on those long overwater structures.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2016, 04:08:31 PM
Of course, Hogan decided to cut a big source of revenue that the state could have started saving for a 3rd span...

Agreed.  And not (re)tolling the entire tolled section of the JFK Highway would bring in a lot of added revenue that could be used to help to fund both both a new crossing of the Chesapeake and a replacement of the Harry Nice.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on February 17, 2016, 04:15:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster
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)?

No.  It's physically impossible to reconfigure the existing spans to Interstate standard, ESPECIALLY the eastbound span.

I disagree, in a sense.

*snip rest*

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
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).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on February 17, 2016, 06:37:08 PM
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).
Read the AASHTO Green Book for Interstates. I believe they allow going down as narrow as 5' shoulder across long spans.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 17, 2016, 09:13:02 PM

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?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on February 17, 2016, 09:35:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 17, 2016, 11:57:47 PM

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 New Carquinez Bridge (2003) as well.

We can still do it.

Title: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2016, 12:39:39 AM
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 haven't paid enough attention to the new Bay Bridge to realize it was not cable-stayed, as seems to be much more common with single-tower bridges.

I guess my real point in asking is, is there a cheaper way of achieving the desired goal here than building a suspension bridge?  I've never crossed the current ones, so I'm not familiar with the specific demands of the site.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2016, 01:02:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 18, 2016, 09:34:48 AM
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.


You...just made a good point. They could make the new one cable stay if they wanted, it would cost less, but would look weird next to the current suspension spans.

I could see this setup. Main span, Suspension or Cable Stay. Approach spans, girders, secondary span, tied arch, similar in construction to the I-65 mobile bay bridge, or the Jefferson Barracks bridge in St Louis. It would be built with 3 lanes and shoulders on both sides, wide enough to where they can direct all traffic to it and reconstruct the existing bridges without much hassle. It would be built south of the existing pair to allow it to be tied into the toll booths  and not have too sharp of a curve on the western end where the two bridges touch down. The original bridge will close first, to allow for tying in the new bridge quickly, think new oakland bay bridge for how that would work out. Traffic would use the newer of the existing bridges in two way for a few days. After a few weeks all traffic would be shifted to the newest bridge. The current spans close for a full refurbishment like the JFK bridge at Louisville. After refurbishment, the 1950s bridge is reopened to eastbound traffic, but no trucks. The modern bridge opens to eastbound trucks and cars, and the westbound bridge gets restriped with three permament lanes.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
If aesthetic imperfection (not mimicking the adjacent bridges) can save a billion dollars, aesthetic imperfection might have to be considered.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jwolfer on February 18, 2016, 10:59:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: AlexandriaVA on February 18, 2016, 11:41:53 AM
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...
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Jardine on February 18, 2016, 01:25:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on February 18, 2016, 01:26:50 PM
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...
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2016, 04:43:46 PM
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.

Longest suspension span currently is this: Akashi Kaikyō Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashi_Kaiky%C5%8D_Bridge)

Norway is considering a much longer main suspension span (not cable-stayed).

Highway E39 over the Sognefjord (pronounced "sonyfior"), with a main span of almost 4 kilometers (!) in length.  English-language video here of the extremely long bridge and other alternatives here (http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/ferjefriE39/English/Film).  English-language report here (http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/274047/binary/485789) (.pdf).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2016, 04:48:20 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jwolfer on February 18, 2016, 07:47:10 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2016, 08:32:49 PM
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

I spent a lot of my childhood and youth in the Deale area of a nearby part of Anne Arundel County, where my late grandparents lived, and know Calvert County very well.

The county is not known for being excessively intrusive in matters of commercial and business development, at least by Maryland standards (FWIW, a huge amount of the county's property tax revenue comes from two properties in the Lusby area - Excelon's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Nuclear_Power_Plant) and Dominion's Cove Point LNG Terminal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Cove_Point_LNG)).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: mattpedersen on February 19, 2016, 10:01:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: AlexandriaVA on February 19, 2016, 10:14:53 AM
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.

If anything, expansion out to Dulles was most justifiable because of a lack of potential RoW for VRE out that way.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on February 19, 2016, 01:40:42 PM
Quote
Come on, you know very well that WMATA is done with system expansions until more capacity comes along.

Do you even realize the dichotomy in what you just said here?

Quote
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.

Not all of it.  VRE wouldn't do squat for southeast Fairfax, where there is STRONG local support for extending the Yellow Line to Fort Belvoir.  Furthermore, such a Yellow Line extension would A) enable redevelopment of several existing commercial nodes along Route 1, and B) enable more direct transit commuting (and reverse commuting) to Fort Belvoir, which actually GREW as a result of BRAC instead of being cut.  Neither of these outcomes would be the "commuter service" you claim they'd be.

Another fact:  a Yellow Line trip from a theoretical Fort Belvoir station would STILL be a shorter trip to Gallery Place than a trip on the Red Line from Shady Grove.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: AlexandriaVA on February 19, 2016, 02:24:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 19, 2016, 04:57:44 PM
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.

Agree.

Md. 4 south from Md. 258 (Bristol) in Anne Arundel County to its north junction with Md. 2 in Sunderland would have to have substantial upgrades, and Md. 2+Md. 4 from there south to a new access road to the bay crossing would need the same. 

SHA would also have to get moving on getting rid of the two remaining signalized intersections on Md. 4  in Prince George's County at Westphalia Road and at Dower House Road (these need to be eliminated anyway for reasons of safety - never understood why SHA (and before it was SHA, SRC) spent all that money to upgrade Md. 4 from south of Dower House Road to Md. 258, but left those three miserable signalized intersections south of I-95/I-495 - at least the one at Suitland Parkway is out for bids and will be gone fairly soon).

Additionally, Md. 2 from Edgewater in Anne Arundel County south to its junction with Md. 4 would likely need to be upgraded to four lane divided (which it probably needs now, give the number of serious crashes experienced, especially between Edgewater and the roundabout in Lothian).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 19, 2016, 05:06:21 PM
I meant to say "core capacity" (namely Rosslyn Tunnel II) and I would like to think you know that's what I meant.

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.

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.

Are you aware of the potential cost of a mid-town line?  Billions and billions and billions of dollars, and do not count on Maryland being willing to contribute one cent toward construction costs.

There is a more-important reason for not extending the rail system right now - there are many repair and replacement projects that need to happen along the existing system, and that must take priority until the maintenance backlog is reduced.

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.

They certainly have upzoned around the Dunn Loring rail station on the south side of I-66, and at Vienna too.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 19, 2016, 10:27:17 PM
Would it be safe to have the oldest span be dedicated to peak travel direction?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on February 20, 2016, 12:28:36 PM
The only way that could be done is if the third span is built south of the existing spans.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 20, 2016, 03:33:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2016, 04:28:35 PM
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.

Regarding the curves, I suspect that a third span here would be reasonably parallel to the existing eastbound (1952) bridge.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 20, 2016, 07:56:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on February 20, 2016, 08:11:49 PM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 20, 2016, 09:01:51 PM
Quote
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.

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.

Plus you would not want long bridges that close. Just incase something bad happens, only one span goes down.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 28, 2017, 05:35:28 PM
WTOP Radio: Remembering When There Wasn’t a Chesapeake Bay Bridge (http://wtop.com/mdta-bayspan/2017/05/remembering-wasnt-chesapeake-bay-bridge/slide/1/)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 15, 2017, 08:26:25 AM
There will be an online meeting on Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:00 PM to discuss the Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study: Tier 1 NEPA (Bay Crossing Study).

Details on this site: http://baycrossingstudy.com/ (http://baycrossingstudy.com/) 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 16, 2018, 11:21:14 AM
Baltimore Sun: As Maryland scouts locations for new Chesapeake Bay Bridge, hope and opposition emerge (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/eastern-shore/bs-md-bay-bridge-20180314-story.html)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 16, 2018, 11:54:58 AM
Is it too obvious to put a new bridge in between the two existing ones?  The main spans are quite far apart.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on March 16, 2018, 01:17:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 16, 2018, 02:10:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ixnay on March 16, 2018, 08:30:20 PM
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
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on March 16, 2018, 10:05:12 PM
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
What about 250' is dangerous, IYO? The new K-Bridge spans in NY will be about 16' apart.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on March 17, 2018, 12:20:39 AM
Is it too obvious to put a new bridge in between the two existing ones?  The main spans are quite far apart.

They have been talking about this and studying the for at least 20 years, and nothing has been done or decided.

The ideal third bridge would be a 3-lane bridge about 200 to 300 feet south of the existing eastbound bridge.  That configuration would provide a 3-lane bridge each way, and the original 2-lane bridge would be in the middle and would be reversible to assist in the peak traffic direction. 

Approach roads would be widened some time in the future, maybe simply by adding a 2-lane reversible roadway between MD-2 and the US-50/US-301 split.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Duke87 on March 17, 2018, 11:12:36 AM
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.

Nitpick: what is on the elevated tracks east of Stadium/Armory is not a wye, as it does not allow direct movements from New Carrollton to Largo Town Center.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Revive 755 on March 17, 2018, 11:37:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: DeaconG on March 17, 2018, 01:58:43 PM
Whatever happened to the Taylor's Island crossing proposal? Perhaps it should be revived?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on March 17, 2018, 02:08:15 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2018, 04:15:56 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on March 17, 2018, 04:16:32 PM
[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 between MD-2 and US-50.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2018, 04:20:20 PM
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.

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.

Is it worth  the expense?  I don't know.  That's for the study to determine.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on March 17, 2018, 04:29:35 PM
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.
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.
Is it worth  the expense?  I don't know.  That's for the study to determine.

Southern bay crossing for Maryland.  The existing crossing is central and there is a not-built northern bay crossing that has been proposed and studied in the past.

It would provide good connectivity between southern Maryland and the lower Maryland Eastern Shore, as the current routing is rather circuitous.

I doubt that they can afford to build more than one new bay bridge, and by far the most effective place would be a third span of the current central crossing that is strategically placed to serve both the Baltimore and Washington areas, and connect the US-301 and US-50 arterial highway corridors on both sides of the Bay.

The northern crossing has similar limitations in the catchment area that it could serve.

I don't see the southern or northern crossings providing much traffic relief to the current bridges.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jwolfer on March 17, 2018, 05:51:58 PM
^ 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

Z981

Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2018, 06:15:18 PM
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

I am quite familiar with  Calvert County.  There used to be anti-development bumper stickers that read "Keep Calvert Country!" that were pretty common.   

Have not seen one for a while.  Maybe because much of northern Calvert County (along MD-4) is now exurban sprawl of Washington and to a lesser extent Baltimore (because it's a long trip from anywhere in Calvert County to most employment in the Baltimore region). 

Remember also that Maryland allows its county governments significant authority to regulate land use. That's one of the reasons why there are several interchanges along busy freeways in the state with no gas stations or convenience stores or other retail nearby.  In some counties, the elected members of the Board of Commissioners or County Councils choose not to use that authority, but in some counties, the regulation is quite  strict.

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/).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on March 17, 2018, 09:24:22 PM
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/).

Also are trying to find the funding to build a parallel MD-4 Thomas Johnson Bridge, due to severe traffic congestion.
....

Excerpts:

Study to upgrade MD 4 between MD 2 and MD 235 (4.0 miles), including the Governor Thomas Johnson Memorial Bridge (Bridge 04019) over the Patuxent River and the intersection at MD 235 (2.9 miles).

Currently, the Thomas Johnson Bridge is funded for final design, only. Funding for design, right of way, acquisition and construction for the other project phases will proceed as funds become available.

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), secured Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Location Approval of SHA’s “Selected Alternative” on September 10, 2015

A new four-lane parallel bridge would be built with two northbound and two southbound lanes.

http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/webprojectlifecycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=SM351114
....

Question:  What happens to the existing bridge?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ixnay on March 18, 2018, 08:23:50 AM
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
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ixnay on March 18, 2018, 08:30:27 AM
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.

Well, I'm not an engineer nor do I play one (or anyone) on TV, but what's there at the Tacoma Narrows landings prevented the spans from being built farther apart?

ixnay
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on March 18, 2018, 12:07:42 PM
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
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 1995hoo on March 18, 2018, 12:24:38 PM
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

Given the pop-culture meaning of "DMB" in reference to a band from Charlottesville, I now have this unfortunate mental image of one of the two bridges singing to the other to "Crash into Me" .....  :ded:
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: davewiecking on August 14, 2018, 12:07:22 PM
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/08/summer-traffic-backups-toward-bay-bridge-could-worsen/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 14, 2018, 12:28:59 PM
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.

The frontage roads and MD-18 have about 1/10 the capacity of a 6-lane freeway, and they have signals and at-grade intersections which further slow traffic and reduce capacity.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: TheOneKEA on August 14, 2018, 03:25:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2018, 03:34:53 PM
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.

Problem is that both of the existing spans have plenty of useful life left, making it unlikely that MDTA would agree to remove even the original 1952 span (which will need to have its deck replaced in the coming years but is still in overall good condition).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2018, 03:46:51 PM
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.

They could always build a new 3 lane span, use the two, 3 lane spans for 50/301 traffic, and bridge the roadway for the 2 lane span over/under one of the roadways approaching a 3 lane span for local traffic.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Mr_Northside on August 15, 2018, 03:22:42 PM
I'm not sure that I'm into (not that it really matters what I think) the notion of a span for "local traffic".  Even with the current bridges, I can't imagine that on a "local level", either side has much to do with each other.

I'm pretty sure I've opined on this before (possibly in a different thread), but it seems that as much as just having 5 lanes (total) capacity, the fact that neither span has really any shoulders to speak of is a major problem.  The bridge can be intimidating enough to some just due it it's nature, but when you're right against the barrier, I think it causes a lot more slow driving than if there was more space between the lanes and the sides of the bridge.

My thoughts are to just build a 3 lane span that actually has full left/right shoulders and used for the direction of travel that makes sense for whether it gets built north or south of the existing spans - Then convert the original 2-lane span to a 1 lane span with shoulders, and the existing 3 lane to 2 lanes with shoulders for the other direction of travel.

That said.... I'll be mostly surprised (but not totally shocked) if a new span gets built across the bay anywhere before I die.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 15, 2018, 03:54:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2018, 11:00:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 15, 2018, 11:15:47 PM
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.

Those not nearly the total length, height, and length of the main span.  The eastern channel span of the CBB is in the length range of those above.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on August 15, 2018, 11:28:47 PM
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)
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 29, 2018, 12:06:46 AM
Looks like Microsoft confused this bridge with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/50-roads-you-need-to-cruise-down-before-you-die/ss-BBMwkda?ocid=spartandhp#image=1


The bridges come in at number 4.

Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Steve D on August 29, 2018, 09:35:42 AM
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...
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 29, 2018, 09:54:01 AM
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...

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on August 29, 2018, 03:55:36 PM
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...

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.
. 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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 29, 2018, 04:10:43 PM
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.
. 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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on August 29, 2018, 06:14:26 PM
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.
. 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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2018, 06:42:22 PM
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...
The Newark Bay Bridge on the NJ Turnpike always had full shoulders.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 29, 2018, 08:09:29 PM
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 I-664 South Trestle and North Approach Bridge together would be about the 4.3 mile length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.  Low-level viaducts.  They do have full right shoulders, but I would daresay there is a radical difference in what the extra width cost.

Per how this shoulder discussion started with respect to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.  Whether building a third bridge or building a new bridge with enough lanes to replace the existing bridges, including full shoulders is a tough call.  If they can afford to add 10 feet of shoulder they might just decide to add 2 more feet and use it as another lane.  Another person wrote, "be replaced with a 6-lane bridge with full shoulders".  If they could afford that then they might reason having 8 lanes with 2 foot shoulders on basically the same deck width.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 29, 2018, 08:18:48 PM
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).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on August 29, 2018, 08:43:45 PM
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).
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2018, 09:03:45 PM
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. 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 29, 2018, 11:51:30 PM
Isn't the extra shoulder width on the new Tappan Zee Bridge already possibly spoken for with respect to adding railroad to the bridge?

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Steve D on August 30, 2018, 08:54:54 AM
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...
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: vdeane on August 30, 2018, 01:22:29 PM
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.

Isn't the extra shoulder width on the new Tappan Zee Bridge already possibly spoken for with respect to adding railroad to the bridge?

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.
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 04:01:47 PM
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.

Mostly low-level trestles with a navigational span with 150 feet of horizontal clearance and 65 feet of vertical clearance.  Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) clearances.
http://www.charts.noaa.gov/BookletChart/11492_BookletChart.pdf

Again not in the league of the kind of bridges we are talking about that handle the large ocean going ships.

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.

Building the third span utilizing the existing towers for the rail lines is obviously the ideal, but expensive.  When "push comes to shove" most agencies would be tempted to use what is already built.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on August 30, 2018, 05:42:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: roadman65 on August 30, 2018, 07:10:03 PM
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...
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: vdeane on August 30, 2018, 09:05:07 PM
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)).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on August 31, 2018, 12:31:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 05, 2018, 11:45:25 AM
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?



Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2018, 01:35:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2018, 01:45:29 PM
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.

Some people also don't like driving in the lane next to the edge of the bridge. On the 2 lane bridge, they have no option.  On the other bridges mentioned, there's 4+ lanes. 

I recall a story my mom said many years ago when she worked in a school.   The Principal was riding along in a school bus on a field trip and was afraid of heights.  He directed the bus driver to drive in the closed middle lane of the Commodore Barry Bridge (before it had the zipper barrier).  The bus subsequently was stopped by the police and the driver issued a ticket.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 05, 2018, 03:47:37 PM
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".
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: BrianP on September 05, 2018, 03:49:58 PM
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. 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 05, 2018, 03:54:39 PM
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. 

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: BrianP on September 05, 2018, 04:07:07 PM
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. 

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 05, 2018, 04:10:00 PM
Still doesn't cover everyone's else's experience.  It only takes one exception to disprove your evidence.

I never claimed to "cover everyone's else's experience", so "only one exception" doesn't really prove anything either.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: seicer on September 05, 2018, 04:56:36 PM
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.

This is why we have assistants that can help motorists at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and at similar older crossings. No one really cares if someone drives over the bridge 5,000 times with no problems; it's a very real problem.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 05, 2018, 05:08:27 PM
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.

How many?  I've probably talked to about 50 people in person about the bridge and I haven't yet talked to someone who refused to drive over it.  Some people are afraid to leave their house too but that doesn't mean that houses are 'scary'.  I actually have talked to a few people who are afraid to drive on any freeway or Interstate highway and refuse to.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: seicer on September 05, 2018, 09:26:40 PM
20-30 per day (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/chesapeake-bay-bridge-drive-over_n_3346540.html).

Other bridges offer similar services (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/16/bridge-driveover-service/13955737/).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 05, 2018, 09:47:59 PM
20-30 per day (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/chesapeake-bay-bridge-drive-over_n_3346540.html).
The Huffington comPost.

"as many as 20 to 30 bridge drive-overs a day during the peak summer vacation months"

A private company and that is out of about 70,000 AADT

"as it’s subjected to frequent—and often violent—storms"

I would like to see some data.  Not true for the Baltimore-Washington-Eastern Shore region in general.

Again hundreds of crossings and I have not yet had that happen to me.  Normally you would see a storm coming and if it is bad enough I would not cross the bridge until the storm passed.

So they include these also --

Millau Viaduct, France
Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, Louisiana
Seven Mile Bridge, Florida
Mackinac Bridge, Michigan
Royal Gorge Bridge, Colorado
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2018, 11:02:54 PM
So now you're denying data that was just presented to you. Drop it, Kozel.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 05, 2018, 11:10:52 PM
So now you're denying data that was just presented to you. Drop it, Kozel.

This is the only item that I questioned with regard to data --
"as it’s subjected to frequent—and often violent—storms"
I would like to see some data.  Not true for the Baltimore-Washington-Eastern Shore region in general.

[…]

I didn't see any actual data in the article about that -- please straighten me out if I missed it.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: seicer on September 05, 2018, 11:13:10 PM
That article is easily verifiable. From sources you may prefer:
https://wamu.org/story/11/05/30/bay_bridge_fear_means_business_boom_for_shuttles/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331679/Chesapeake-Bay-bridge-The-Maryland-bridge-terrifying-locals-pay-25-company-shuttle-car.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/service-aids-fearful-drivers-across-the-chesapeake.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/for-some-a-drive-across-the-chesapeake-bay-bridge-is-a-harrowing-experience/2013/07/22/e6f1b8b4-f300-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5a5229703066
https://wtop.com/news/2013/07/local-service-drives-scared-drivers-across-bay-bridge/

Etc. It's a mom-and-pop operation. They aren't going to hand out data. Take their word for it. And the fact they can provide themselves a living off of $25 rides 3-30 times a day.

I did not know that the CBBT offered an in-house service, and did not know that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge had discontinued theirs. I remember about 10 years ago driving over it in a violent storm and it was white knucked driving. The cars behind and ahead of me were riding towards and in the center of the two-lane one-way crossing, presumably because we had fears of being thrown over the edge!

I am sad but kind of glad that awful two-lane (one-way) cantilever bridge down in Charleston SC was replaced. Very steep grades, tight turns mid-way, and something like 8 or 9 foot lanes. Also driven in less than prime conditions when I was 18. Good times!
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Rothman on September 06, 2018, 07:53:19 AM


So now you're denying data that was just presented to you. Drop it, Kozel.

Alps wins the Internet today.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: odditude on September 06, 2018, 09:44:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 06, 2018, 10:03:58 AM
Aw, man. I didn't want to start an argument over this. Scott, you and I aren't afraid to cross the bridge. That's good. Nobody you know is afraid of it either. That's good too. Most of the people I know either never heard of it, or confuse it with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. They should go to your site. But that doesn't mean other people aren't afraid of it.

Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2018, 12:07:48 PM
So now you're denying data that was just presented to you. Drop it, Kozel.
Alps wins the Internet today.

At the Woodrow Wilson Bridge opening ceremonies in 2006, one of the speakers mentioned the possibility of raffling off 10 or 20 momentos of the project.  I turned to the guy sitting next to me and said, "I propose that the winners be awarded a chunk of concrete!"  Got a good chuckle from him and several others nearby who heard it.

Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: roadman65 on September 06, 2018, 03:52:23 PM
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 think the Huey P. Long in NOLA was scarier when the bridge vibrated as I was stuck in traffic to not move but feel the movements of the opposing cars.  Now if a train came across I am sure that bridge really would have shook as that particular bridge is both a road and rail structure across the Mississippi.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 07, 2018, 10:23:02 PM
Regarding being on a bridge during a violent storm, I was thinking about my past experiences.  Obviously everybody has their own experiences, but here is mine to the best of my recollection.  1.1 million miles of driving in last 50 years.

I don't recall being on a bridge during a "violent storm".  That would seem to include high winds, hail, blizzard, etc.  There have been some times when I have crossed a bridge during snow or ice conditions, and a couple were a bit dicey, but not to the level any emergency.

I can think of just one time that I was on a bridge in seriously problematic traffic conditions due to a storm.  I was about age 20, crossing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-495), and a heavy rain became severe enough to where many vehicles were stopping in the right lane, and that was back when there was no shoulder wide enough to hold a car.  Even with the windshield wipers on high I could barely see the road in front of me, and it was loud with the amount of rain hitting metal.  I and some other drivers did manage about 5 mph all the way across the bridge, as I wanted to reserve stopping for a full shoulder unless it was deemed impossible.  The rain did slack off about 10 minutes later.

Given the very small percentage of road mileage that is comprised of major bridges, that likely is the reason why it could be rare.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: CentralPAGal on September 07, 2018, 11:26:43 PM
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.)
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ipeters61 on September 08, 2018, 11:15:20 PM
I drove the bridge last weekend, for the second time in two years, when visiting a friend who lives in the DC suburbs (I rarely go west since most of my friends/family live north of me).  Personally, I didn't find it too bad, I just kept going in the middle lane (westbound)/right lane (eastbound, night time) at around 55 and felt okay.  Frankly, I just was so amazed that after three minutes or so I just said to myself, "Wait, I'm still on the bridge.  :-o"  I find it a very beautiful experience, I rarely go that way and I found it to be a nice drive.  If anything, driving the Capital Beltway was way more nervewracking than the bridge.

However, I know my father is not a fan of long bridges and can't imagine his reaction to the Bay Bridge.  From what I remember, westbound had a very unnerving looking "guardrail" on both sides, which is why I kept to the middle lane - I know my father really hates those (eastbound, if I recall correctly, had a concrete "guardrail" on both sides).  I also have a coworker who told me her husband hates driving over the bridge so she has to do the driving over it...and they've done the trip several times.

I would especially dread driving over that bridge in very windy conditions, though.  Just makes me think of that crash on the Bay Bridge-Tunnel in Virginia (https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/virginia/2018/08/02/after-fatal-bay-bridge-tunnel-crash-search-answers/863035002/) that happened recently...
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 08, 2018, 11:31:28 PM
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
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2018, 11:52:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2018, 09:06:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2018, 09:19:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2018, 10:44:57 PM
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". Let me know how you enjoy your EF5.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2018, 11:53:50 PM
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".

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! 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: US71 on September 10, 2018, 08:22:37 PM
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".

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! 

Hope you have your water wings
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 10, 2018, 08:54:16 PM
I am enjoying my very well funded retirement! 
Hope you have your water wings

Water wings?  The only thing that comes up on a search are these arm flotation devices for people who are learning how to swim.  I grew up in a beach front community in Florida and learned how to swim at 8 years old, and how sail a sailboat at 9.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on September 10, 2018, 09:06:32 PM
I think he's referring to what you're about to get in 72-96 hours...
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 10, 2018, 09:12:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ipeters61 on September 10, 2018, 09:16:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on September 10, 2018, 10:38:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2018, 10:38:24 AM
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.

It's not the wind that's going to be your problem.  The "water wings" comment from previously is very appropriate.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 1995hoo on September 11, 2018, 10:51:09 AM
The rain forecast makes it sound like parts of Virginia may experience flashbacks to Hurricane Camille.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2018, 11:08:53 AM
The rain forecast makes it sound like parts of Virginia may experience flashbacks to Hurricane Camille.

Or Agnes.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 11, 2018, 02:30:51 PM
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.
It's not the wind that's going to be your problem.  The "water wings" comment from previously is very appropriate.

Not yet known whether rainfall will be any serious problem, the track is now bending to the south.  Any James River flooding and severity depends on where the remnants wind up.

I do have a problem with when a "Global Moderator" makes sniping, "joking" remarks about possible severe weather impacting where I live. 

How would he like it if I made "joking" cracks about EF4 and EF5 tornadoes hitting urban areas in Missouri and Oklahoma?  I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: CentralPAGal on September 12, 2018, 05:37:28 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on September 12, 2018, 09:20:48 PM
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.

The US-50/US-301 approach highway is a freeway with full shoulders, including the toll plaza area. 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: CentralPAGal on September 13, 2018, 06:06:24 PM
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.

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 bridge
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:28:28 PM
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.

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 bridge

It doesn't happen all that often
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2019, 12:50:27 PM
MDTA news release (08/27/2019): FEDERAL NEPA PROCESS TO INCLUDE FOUR PRELIMINARY BAY CROSSING STUDY ALTERNATIVES: THREE CORRIDORS AND NO BUILD (https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MDDOT/bulletins/25b3b0b)

Quote
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)

Baltimore Sun: Bay Bridge study narrows options to three crossings from Anne Arundel County (https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-bay-bridge-options-20190827-2kd5uvmx6jgm3bgolna2ah6cxq-story.html)
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: BrianP on August 27, 2019, 01:49:12 PM
I've always thought a new bridge at the existing crossing is the most likely scenario.  You get the most bang for the buck since the other options would need to include new highways to connect to a new bridge.  And I think you would get much less opposition as well. 

I'd like to see a new cable stayed bridge there.  But not like the Sunshine Skyway. More like the Ravenel bridge in SC. 
https://goo.gl/maps/6zJyHrRMnjJtycB8A
Because then the cables are on the outside of the bridge instead of in the middle.  This would allow for the possibility of reversible lanes to handle the single direction peak traffic that the crossing has. Either 7 lanes with one reversible lane or 8 lanes which probably would not need any reversible lanes should what's strived for.  A cost cutting measure could be 5 lanes with reversible lane(s) or 6 lanes to match the highway on either side. 

I don't think we'll see a new bridge until at least 2030.  Next up for MDTA is the Nice bridge. 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 02:05:13 PM
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.

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.

What are they talking about with extending MD-100 across the bay or building a crossing to Easton?  Those bridges would be so long, over 10 miles, that they must be taking reefer to come up with alternatives like that.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2019, 02:08:43 PM
I don't think we'll see a new bridge until at least 2030.  Next up for MDTA is the Nice bridge. 

I agree.

This has to go through a full NEPA process to get to a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) which will take several years on its own. Then there will be litigation (and opponents of a new bridge will again demand that ferries be part of the solution, which they are clearly not - and others will demand a Metro or light rail line from Washington and Baltimore to Ocean City), which probably brings us to 2030. 

One nice thing about 2030 - a lot of the debt that was issued by MDTA to build the initial part of the I-95 Express Toll Lanes and MD-200 will have been paid-off or paid-down by then, which means there should be some bonding capacity available to build a new (and quite expensive) new structure.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2019, 02:12:27 PM

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.

A new crossing at Tolchester Beach or Rock Hall is nice from a network redundancy point of view, but the impacts on Kent County are probably not acceptable - also, it is a remarkably LONG way to get to U.S. 301, U.S. 50, MD-313 or MD-404 from either of those Eastern Shore proposed landing points.

Those alternatives are useful to MDTA to be able to demonstrate to the courts when the inevitable lawsuit happens from anti-highway and anti-auto groups and persons that the planning process considered three highway alternatives and the no-build (and an alll-transit alternative was studied some years ago and rejected as  unworkable).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: BrianP on August 27, 2019, 02:57:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 03:52:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2019, 04:49:26 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: BrianP on August 27, 2019, 04:54:50 PM
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. 

As for the amount of the toll, I think it would likely go up. But I don't think it would surpass the amount paid in the NYC area or the CBBT. 

Sooner might also be better because I don't know how long until the existing bridges need major work done to them. 

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...

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: BrianP on August 27, 2019, 06:43:50 PM
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.
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. 

This supports the idea about needing 8 lanes with reversible lanes:
Quote
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

So at minimum you need a third span with three lanes.  I'd question how five lanes in either direction would work with the adjacent freeway segments.  How do you need five lanes when the adjacent highways only have 3 in each direction?  Will MDSHA be able widen US 50 or would that need to be added to the P3 in the form of reversible HOT lanes?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 07:58:04 PM
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.

Both bridges have had major redeckings, and the 1973 bridge is in the final stages of stripping/repainting the bridge with the work on the Eastern Channel bridge.

Both bridges meet modern structural standards, the only problem being that 5 lanes is inadequate for an AADT of about 70,000, and holiday peak day volumes of about 100,000.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 08:05:40 PM
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 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.

As far as redundancy goes, the northern crossing would be poorly positioned to handle Washington traffic, and the southern crossing would be poorly positioned to handle Baltimore traffic.

Having 3 spans at the existing crossing would seem to provide ample redundancy.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on August 28, 2019, 12:33:43 AM
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.

Similar to how the Tappan Zee Bridge was done in New York.

Expensive, but would definitely have adequate capacity.

A way to phase it and use the existing infrastructure in place could be to build only one 5-lane bridge now for one direction, and use the existing bridges for the other 5 lanes heading the other direction, and just split it 2 + 3. Once the current bridges start to reach the end of their lifespan, then build a new parallel 5-lane bridge and tear down the existing bridges.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 28, 2019, 12:53:28 AM
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.
Similar to how the Tappan Zee Bridge was done in New York.
Expensive, but would definitely have adequate capacity.
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.

Also good luck building two such bridges each with an 84 foot roadway for that highway at that location.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 28, 2019, 09:16:17 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/08/28/gov-hogan-there-is-only-one-option-i-will-ever-accept-relieve-bay-bridge-backups/

Maryland transportation officials are still studying how to best reduce traffic backups at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. But Gov. Larry Hogan (R) said Wednesday that building a third span at the existing bridge is the only option he would approve.

“There is only one option I will ever accept: adding a third span to our existing Bay Bridge,” Hogan tweeted.   “While the federal process requires multiple proposals, the data is indisputable — this option would maximize congestion relief & minimize environmental impact.”

Hogan, citing information from the state study, said not building a third span would result in 14-mile delays at the bridge by 2040.  Building a third span, he tweeted, is “the only serious way forward” to relieve cross-bay traffic congestion.


See the URL for the rest of the article.

As can be expected, the RE/T groups are cited in saying that this won't do any good.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Henry on August 29, 2019, 08:56:45 PM
Reviving dead transportation projects is nothing new. A prime example is the ICC, which was killed off in the mid-90s, only to be brought back to life sometime in the aughts, and completed by 2012. Since Hogan will be out of office by 2022, the Red Line (which he killed in 2015) may get a second life afterwards.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: SteveG1988 on August 29, 2019, 09:20:20 PM
Here is my prediction. A suspension bridge built using concrete towers and a truss deck, think new span of the Tacoma Narrows. Reasoning: you can space the towers exactly like the current ones, allowing for a clearer navigational channel. That is the standard for all twin bridges as far as i know. The span between the suspension and the secondary channel would be a concrete cantiliver. Then the eastern channel...just to be fancy, a small cable stay bridge, or an arch just to show off MDTA engineering.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on August 29, 2019, 09:43:25 PM
The concept to build a new Chesapeake Bay Bridge has never been a "dead transportation project".

For at least the last 30 years it has been seen as a real need for the future.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 13, 2019, 09:49:09 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 13, 2019, 10:13:50 PM
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.

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
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ipeters61 on October 13, 2019, 10:23:59 PM
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.

(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
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.
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2019, 10:34:03 PM
Operate ferry service instead - don't need an overbuilt piece of infrastructure just because of some inconveniences. Ferry fleet can be scaled up and down as needed.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on October 13, 2019, 10:39:57 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 13, 2019, 11:20:46 PM
45 minute backups? Just sounds like a typical Friday on nearby I-95 leaving south. Been there, done that countless times.
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.

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.

The project maintenance of traffic narrows the westbound bridge to 2 lanes, and makes it infeasible to reverse its inside lane when 3 eastbound lanes are needed.

IOW, traffic is restricted to 2 lanes each way at all times, thus causing the cited problems.

At least next summer all 5 lanes will be kept open and most work will be shutdown for the summer.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 14, 2019, 06:01:32 AM
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.

People pay taxes, I paid my fair share of gas taxes when I was up there, where’s the money going? Tolls? HO/T lanes? How about some more general purpose improvements. 4th lane each way? Seemed to be a lot of GP improvements before 2014. 4-lane widening north of Woodbridge, Springfield Interchange, Woodrow Wilson Bridge, etc. then it just suddenly stopped. But I digress. There’s already a thread for all this.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 14, 2019, 07:25:32 AM
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.
You haven't had "countless times my travels had me leaving that area at that time".

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.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 14, 2019, 01:49:18 PM
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?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 14, 2019, 03:29:40 PM
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.

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!
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 14, 2019, 04:26:23 PM
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.
You haven't had "countless times my travels had me leaving that area at that time".

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.
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.

I simply made a comparison that the backups sound like nearby I-95. You’re the one who made the comment regarding HO/T lanes, which you know is only going to provoke things. If you can’t read, I put at the end “I digress, there’s already another thread for this”.

You’re taking my legitimate argument regarding the HO/T lanes and VDOT’s lack of GP improvements after there inception, and you’re merely turning it around to make personal attacks.

Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on October 14, 2019, 07:05:14 PM
 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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 14, 2019, 07:09:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 14, 2019, 07:10:15 PM
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.

Closing the third lane on the one span would be a mistake.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on October 14, 2019, 08:26:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway
I 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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 14, 2019, 08:38:23 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: vdeane on October 14, 2019, 09:00:01 PM
^ 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.
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 14, 2019, 09:03:55 PM
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.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 14, 2019, 09:13:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway
I 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.
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.

A 6-mile bike ride between the nearest points of interest is another matter, and with low population areas at either end.  Long upgrade for a bike.

Some other D.C. Potomac crossings had proven bike/ped facilities.  Maybe traffic studies will show that a Bay Bridge path would be successful, but I wouldn't compare it to WWB.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on October 14, 2019, 10:49:10 PM
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.
 
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: tolbs17 on October 14, 2019, 11:02:45 PM
Just imagine if I ever saw sidewalks and/or bike lanes on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge...
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: hbelkins on October 15, 2019, 11:26:59 AM
^ 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.
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 15, 2019, 12:19:52 PM
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.
A vehicular ferry that carries more than 2,000 per day is rare indeed, especially over that distance.

People underestimate how much sealift capacity it takes to run a high-volume ferry.

The Bay Bridge carries about 70,000 AADT, approaching 100,000 on the busiest days, so you can do the math.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2019, 01:04:06 PM
Not to mention the ferry would potentially be running nearly empty in the direction traffic is light, so there are those additional costs as well.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 05:33:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway
I 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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 15, 2019, 05:49:54 PM
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.

Urban areas on each side, at 2.4 miles shorter than the Bay Bridge (5.8 miles between the 2 closest interchanges), plus popular sites of interest on each side.  Thousands of homes on the east side whereby some people would bike-commute to the downtown.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 15, 2019, 05:56:21 PM
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.

The new bridge features a shared-use path.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on October 16, 2019, 11:57:23 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 06:39:36 AM
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 traffic engineering studies may show otherwise.  We shall see.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 06:45:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 17, 2019, 11:33:06 AM
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.

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.

It is not terribly far from Annapolis (and fairly flat) to ride a bike to the Western Shore landing of the WPL Bridge.

Sandy Point State Park is also hard by the Western Shore landing.  I think at least on warm days, the presence of a bike path would induce demand to cross.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on October 18, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
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.
Okay, now I think you're trolling. Traffic engineering includes pedestrians and bicyclists.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 18, 2019, 07:18:14 AM
^ 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2019, 10:16:50 AM
^ 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.
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.

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.

In NJ, the Route 55/47/347 corridor heading to the shore would never show up on any normal congestion report.  However, when they include it specifically for the summer, it becomes a Top 10 need (I think it was #9 in the entire state).  So occasionally these need to normalize/right size/buzzword these reports to show a concern that is abnormally significant outside of the normal traffic volume survey periods.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 23, 2019, 09:14:35 PM
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Rehab Spawns Big Backups
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2019, 11:21:30 PM
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Rehab Spawns Big Backups
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.
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?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 23, 2019, 11:41:18 PM
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Rehab Spawns Big Backups
October 23, 2019
https://www.enr.com/articles/48000-chesapeake-bay-bridge-rehab-spawns-big-backups
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?
"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."

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on October 24, 2019, 12:07:40 AM
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Rehab Spawns Big Backups
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)
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?
"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."

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.
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'.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2019, 05:57:21 AM
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'.
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.

"Engineering News-Record provides the engineering and construction news, analysis, commentary and data that construction industry professionals need to do their jobs more effectively. "
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: hbelkins on October 24, 2019, 04:43:32 PM
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Rehab Spawns Big Backups
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)
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?
"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."

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.
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'.

"Reduce the length and duration of congestion periods." "Cut the amount of time the work will increase congestion." Maybe a few qualifiers would have made it a tad more accurate.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2019, 06:59:28 PM
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?

I agree.

And it bothers me that there may be changes to the engineering specifications in order to get the job done quicker.  That, IMO, is a bad idea- and your thoughts on that are appreciated.

The only measures that the state can take have to do with management of the crossing, and maybe with getting some people to alter the times that they use it. 

My suggestions (personal opinions only):

0. Do not delay this work for any reason.

1. Convert to cashless two-way tolling (when this project is complete, MDTA can look at a return to one-way toll collection).

2. Charge higher tolls during hours when congestion is especially severe.  Not to minimize traffic, not to maximize revenue, but to maximize vehicular throughput.

3. Add more freeway service patrols along both approaches to point at least ten miles distant from the bridge.

4. Deploy State Police and MDTA Police to deal rapidly with incidents that may happen.

4.  Solicit bids from private bus operators to initiate free express bus service running from places like Wye Oak, Queenstown, Kent Narrows and Stevensville on the Eastern Shore to: downtown Annapolis and along the MD-450 (West Street) corridor, downtown Baltimore City, Glen Burnie, downtown Washington, D.C. and New Carrollton.  Make the existing bus service to Kent Island free for the duration of the project.  Allow buses to approach the bridge by using the shoulders (with appropriate signs).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 24, 2019, 07:02:39 PM
1. Convert to cashless two-way tolling (when this project is complete, MDTA can look at a return to one-way toll collection).

2. Charge higher tolls during hours when congestion is especially severe.  Not to minimize traffic, not to maximize revenue, but to maximize vehicular throughput.
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".
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2019, 07:26:19 PM
1. Convert to cashless two-way tolling (when this project is complete, MDTA can look at a return to one-way toll collection).

2. Charge higher tolls during hours when congestion is especially severe.  Not to minimize traffic, not to maximize revenue, but to maximize vehicular throughput.
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".

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.   MDTA knows what the capacity of the crossing is in terms of vehicles per lane per hour (it's somewhat less than a freeway lane, which is generally between 2,000 and 2,200).  The tolls should be set to encourage the number of vehicles that can cross in an hour without a breakdown in flow.

Long before any of the roads above were envisioned, the late Professor (of economics) William S. Vickrey of Columbia University was advocating  for tolling of this kind, as discussed here (https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Vickrey.html) and I quote in part:

Quote
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.

This and other work was to lead to Vickrey being awarded The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1996/summary/) in 1996.  Annoyingly, Vickrey died a few days after learning that he had been awarded a Nobel, so he did not get to travel to Stockholm to receive his prize.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: hbelkins on October 24, 2019, 07:28:43 PM
1. Convert to cashless two-way tolling (when this project is complete, MDTA can look at a return to one-way toll collection).

2. Charge higher tolls during hours when congestion is especially severe.  Not to minimize traffic, not to maximize revenue, but to maximize vehicular throughput.
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".

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 24, 2019, 07:29:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2019, 07:32:52 PM
1. Convert to cashless two-way tolling (when this project is complete, MDTA can look at a return to one-way toll collection).
2. Charge higher tolls during hours when congestion is especially severe.  Not to minimize traffic, not to maximize revenue, but to maximize vehicular throughput.
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".
Depending on how high, it could spread the traffic out over more timespan, pricing some of the vehicles out of the highest volume hours.

MSHA has been advocating the spreading out the US-50 peak travel since the mid 1990s, by announcing that after the preceding major upgrades (I-595, US-50 freeway upgrades, removal of 2-lane bottlenecks at Cambridge and Vienna), there would be very few if any major upgrades in the future, due to financial limitations.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2019, 07:59:31 PM
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.

From MDTA's annual report ending June 2018, about 34% of toll revenue collected at the Chesapeake Bay (WPL) Bridge comes from old-fashioned cash toll collection.
E-ZPass accounts for better than 65% of toll revenue.
Video tolling is about 2.5% of collected toll revenue.

Note that this is toll revenue, not toll transactions.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2019, 08:04:36 PM
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.

Some people may telecommute instead, effectively removing the trip from the bridge.

And if there is a transit alternative, and especially if that alternative is free, some people will take the express bus.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: vdeane on October 24, 2019, 08:58:11 PM
Not to mention that it might encourage traffic bypassing I-95 via US 301 to stay on I-95.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2019, 09:10:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 1995hoo on October 24, 2019, 09:18:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 24, 2019, 10:53:27 PM
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.

Since the signs can only display 2 messages of 3 lines each, it's nearly impossible to provide any good detail, especially as there's no one common destination travelers are headed towards
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2019, 11:01:47 PM
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.

The north terminus of I-97 is not the greatest place to be right now, with the I-895 Baltimore Harbor Tunnel restricted to one lane each way until the Canton Viaduct replacement project is completed.  If a driver knows the area, they can use the Outer Loop I-695 to cross the F.S. Key Bridge (seldom congested, though cash toll collection there is ending, which might deter some drivers without an E-ZPass).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: vdeane on October 25, 2019, 08:39:13 PM
Plus if someone's using the Bay Bridge to avoid I-95, paying less in tolls might be a reason why.  Bay Bridge + US 301 + DE 1 is still less than Harbor Tunnel + Tidings Bridge + Delaware Turnpike, and is now all high-speed divided highway and freeway.  Plus I-97 doesn't result in enough of a bypass to really be worth it, especially since you're going the long way around, rather than an alternate way of comparable mileage.  Plus the times I've driven in the DC/MD/DE corridor, the worst delays on I-95 were actually north of Baltimore.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 26, 2019, 01:08:54 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 26, 2019, 07:33:34 AM
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.

Not sure about the congestion, but obviously the volumes would have been considerably lower 17 years ago.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: hbelkins on October 26, 2019, 05:24:30 PM
Plus the times I've driven in the DC/MD/DE corridor, the worst delays on I-95 were actually north of Baltimore.

Same here. Which is why I opted to stay in Annapolis and use US 301 to attend the Delaware meet a couple of years ago. Of course, I was already out at Reedville at the end of US 360 anyway, so it just made sense to use the Nice Bridge to cross the Potomac. But I opted not to use I-95 precisely because of prior bad experiences.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on October 28, 2019, 07:24:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 28, 2019, 07:56:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 28, 2019, 08:36:16 AM
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.

And certainly, viewing just the AADT without any underlying detail can miss a lot of important data.

Let's say in 2002 the bridge was already at capacity from 5 - 6pm.  In 2018, chances are, there would've been no increase whatsoever during that time, because you can't sqeeze additional traffic onto something that is already jammed and at capacity.  But from 2-3pm, 3-4pm, 4-5pm, 6-7pm, 7-8pm, etc. there may have been an increase up to capacity.  Depending on previous traffic levels, the 4-5pm and 6-7pm levels may have already been heavy, so those increases may have been relatively minor, just up to whatever capacity is.  The further you go out - 3-4pm and 7-8pm, those levels may have increased more substantially because there was more capacity to work with.

Traffic on Saturday and Sunday would've seen similar numbers.

However, Monday - Thursday growth may have been lower overall if people decided they didn't want to make the Bay Bridge a commuting bridge. 

Thus, the overall increase may be substantially related to a very short period of time during the overall week; something that may not necessarily be picked up using a broad AADT report.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2019, 10:02:59 AM
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.

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. 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 28, 2019, 11:44:52 AM
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.
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.
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.

This is another factor in increased weekend travel to the beaches, granted that it is only partway to the Delaware beaches, granted that the increases would be fairly small, but yet another factor in adding traffic at times when the Bay Bridge is already near capacity.

Probably increases in weekday commuters from Denton and east of Denton to the Western Shore, as well.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ixnay on October 28, 2019, 05:07:44 PM
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
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 28, 2019, 08:56:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on October 28, 2019, 11:31:25 PM
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'm sure a few people do it for the DE tax benefits, just like PA commuters to NYC.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 29, 2019, 06:10:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 29, 2019, 07:05:25 AM
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.

The ship yards have always drawn long-distance commuters as there are a number of specialized trades that provide high-paying wages.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ipeters61 on October 29, 2019, 12:45:15 PM
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'm sure a few people do it for the DE tax benefits, just like PA commuters to NYC.
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 29, 2019, 01:45:59 PM
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'm sure a few people do it for the DE tax benefits, just like PA commuters to NYC.
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 understand that people move from the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland areas to Delaware (especially Sussex County) when nearing retirement for a few reasons:

(1) No state income sales tax in Delaware.

(2) A slightly milder climate in winter.

(3) Near the Atlantic Ocean beaches.

(4) Still reasonably close to friends and families when compared to other retirement alternatives like Florida and Arizona.

Some people apparently pack up and move even before retirement, making a conscious choice to commute that far for a while.  I have spoken with several such persons. IMO, not something I would be interested in doing.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2019, 03:33:29 PM

(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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 29, 2019, 05:20:19 PM

(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.

Thank you for that.  I got sales and income taxes swapped. 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 29, 2019, 05:50:24 PM
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.

As you mention, the outskirts for commuting traffic is generally anywhere from Franklin, Elizabeth City, and Barco. Some people opt to travel farther (I knew someone years back that commuted from Edenton to Norfolk daily, 70 miles each way), but not many.

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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 29, 2019, 06:19:07 PM
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 -
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 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.

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?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on October 29, 2019, 11:15:23 PM

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.
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 30, 2019, 06:34:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 30, 2019, 06:50:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Mapmikey on October 30, 2019, 07:02:51 AM
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 -
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 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.

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?


When I worked at Norfolk Naval Shipyard 1991-93 (located in Portsmouth near downtown), my supervisor commuted from south of the south end of NC 343.  Another came from Zuni way up US 460.  I knew of a couple people who lived in Whaleyville (US 13 near NC line) and there were a few who came from across the CBBT and also York County.  Some of them tried to stay on back shifts as much as they could to have better traffic conditions.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2019, 07:13:42 AM
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.

If they toll the local road, that'll encourage people to stay on the highway.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on October 30, 2019, 10:02:22 AM
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.
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.
QW: Quality of AAWDT: 
A Average of Complete Continuous Count Data
B Average of Selected Continuous Count Data
F Factored Short Term Traffic Count Data
G Factored Short Term Traffic Count Data with Growth Element
M Manual Uncounted Estimate
N AAWDT of Similar Neighboring Traffic Link
O Provided by External Source 
. . . . . .

In 2018 the two are almost equal --
Border:  26,000 AADT and 25,000 AAWDT
North of business route start: 
  10,000 AADT and 9,600 AAWDT for VA-168
  15,000 AADT and 16,000 AAWDT for Bus. VA-168

The border figures are quality "A" and the others are "G", which is a lower quality estimate.

I wonder about data that doesn't count Friday as a weekday, and I also wonder about regional commuting patterns given that the Norfolk/H.R. area has work trip generators that have large numbers of employees and substantial weekend employment such as military bases, shipyards and marine terminals.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: RoadPelican on October 30, 2019, 05:00:20 PM
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. 

Orlando is the best example of this.  It's an economy built on low wage tourist jobs, limited mass transit, only two options for getting around:  spend half your paycheck on tolls or hurt the engine, brakes, transmission of your car from driving in mile after mile of stop-and-go traffic.

Chesapeake has a little bit better job market than Orlando, but like much of the Southeast, people are so anti-toll they are more than willing to sit in traffic congestion.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: RoadPelican on October 30, 2019, 05:08:59 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on October 30, 2019, 05:24:26 PM
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.

The AADT was 15,000 - 16,000 before the toll road opened on Battlefield Blvd, and still remains that way today. Except, the entire corridor overall (both VA-168 and Battlefield Blvd combined) has gone from 15,000 - 16,000 to 26,000, mostly due to increasing growth in the southern part of the city and mainly growth in Moyock.

It certainly helps during peak weekends, because despite the high $8 toll, a majority of those New York, New Jersey, and other out-of-state plates gladly fly down the toll road at 70+ mph and have no desire to shunpike (An $8 toll to someone from the northeast isn't all that abnormal or expensive).

So while traffic congestion is certainly an issue on Battlefield Blvd and something the city seems to ignore, the toll road hasn't hurt, it just hasn't been utilized to its full extent. Only some of the benefits have come (some commuters use it, and a significant amount of long-distance use it), it hasn't had it's full potential shown.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: epzik8 on November 04, 2019, 10:32:41 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2019, 01:57:32 PM
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.

One of the lead engineers assigned by MDOT/SHA to oversee the reconstruction of the Wilson Bridge
was an experienced construction manager, but had purchased a retirement home in Salisbury and
moved there, rather far from the WWB construction site.

But his bosses made a deal to keep him working on the WWB, letting him set his own hours to
some extent (he would leave home at a brutally early hour most days, as the drive is better than
120 miles one way) and on most Fridays he was able to do his work from the MDOT/SHA office
in Salisbury instead of the long, long drive to Oxon Hill. 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 1995hoo on November 11, 2019, 10:49:19 AM
I briefly worked with someone who commuted by bus from Cambridge, Maryland, to downtown DC. She didn’t last long!
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 08:52:09 PM
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/)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 09:17:57 PM
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/)
Quote
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.

This should enable easy two-way tolling given that the toll plaza will be removed.  Is that the plan to have two-way tolling?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2020, 09:37:29 PM
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/)
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 09:41:15 PM
Quote
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.
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.
All-electronic tolling would not cost more to implement if it was two-way.

For the tolling, simply charge one half of the one-way toll.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 11:16:10 PM
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/)
Quote
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.

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.

I disagree.  The marginal cost to the state of doing two-way all-electronic toll collection is not that high.

But consider the battering that the right lane of the westbound span has taken with truck traffic, some of which carefully routes I-95 southbound traffic south along U.S. 301 and across the westbound span, where there is no toll collection.  It allows the trucks to shunpike the Delaware Turnpike tolls on I-95, as well as the tolls through Baltimore on I-95, I-695 and I-895.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on January 07, 2020, 11:43:42 PM
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/)
Quote
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.
So does this mean that if I stash the EZPass, I can drive for free? (plus the cost of getting down there)
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2020, 01:44:58 AM
Quote
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.
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.
All-electronic tolling would not cost more to implement if it was two-way.

For the tolling, simply charge one half of the one-way toll.

Quote
I disagree.  The marginal cost to the state of doing two-way all-electronic toll collection is not that high.


Sure it will.

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.

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
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 06:56:17 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 1995hoo on January 08, 2020, 07:45:32 AM
The bridge has five total lanes. Two on the “eastbound” bridge, three on the “westbound,” and they normally reverse one lane on the “westbound” bridge if traffic requires a third eastbound lane.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2020, 02:30:48 PM
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.



Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.

Quote
In 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.

Now, if you want to talk about truckers using 301-50, let's look at the realities for 5 axle Trucks who don't try to shunpike.  We'll assume the normal cash/EZ Pass rates...

Southbound: Toll via on 95 from Delaware to the DC area:
I-95 in Delaware: $9.00
Either 95/695/895 in the Baltimore area: $24.00
Total: $33.00

Southbound: Toll via 1 to 301 to 50 from Delaware to the DC area
US 301 in Delaware: $11.00

So it's a nice $22.00 savings.

Northbound: Toll via on 95 from the DC area to Delaware:

Either 95/695/895 in the Baltimore area: $24.00
I-95 in Maryland: $48.00
I-95 in Delaware: $9.00
Total: $81.00

Northbound: Toll via 50 to 301 to 1 from the DC area to Delaware:
US 50/301 at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge: $24.00
US 301 in Delaware: $11.00
Total: $35.00

So, a huge $46.00 savings. 

But wait a minute...it's been brought up that the reason for the construction on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is truckers are using it shunpiking Southbound.  I just proved that there's even a more significant savings Northbound...so that whole excuse doesn't hold much water as a primary reason.

Now that I've presented that...let's say the Chesapeake Bay Bridge goes 2 way tolling.  As the toll is $24 currently EB, let's assume they'll cut it in half so it's $12 each way.

That brings the overall toll for SB truckers to $23, so they're still saving $10 in that direction.

However in the Northbound direction, they'll be spending $12 less. They'll now save an incredible $58 going Northbound via 50/301/1, versus I-95!

So tell me...why would Maryland want to revert to two-way tolling again?  There's absolutely no reason to justify the expense (which, again, you're sweet at thinking it'll cost $100,000) when 1 way captures nearly all of the round-trip motorists anyway.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 02:52:45 PM
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.
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.

Quote
In 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.
There are many other trip pairs other than going to I-95 in northern Delaware.

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.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2020, 03:44:36 PM
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.
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.

I'm hoping bidx will tell me the results.  I'll look when I have some time.

Quote
In 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.
There are many other trip pairs other than going to I-95 in northern Delaware.

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?

My comments were in reply to posts regarding truckers shunning the I-95 tolls in favor of utilizing 301/50.

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.

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.
 

Very true.  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.  Indications are, they won't.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2020, 04:31:16 PM
Either 95/695/895 in the Baltimore area: $24.00
I-95 in Maryland: $48.00
Yikes.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 08, 2020, 04:57:10 PM
There was quite a bit of truck traffic on US-301 last Sunday, so there are definitely folks taking advantage of the savings and lower stress of said route.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2020, 05:11:51 PM
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.
You shouldn't largely grab numbers out of the air.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2020, 05:53:25 PM
Which direction of the CBB has more traffic? In any event, I do not like one-way tolling, unless tolling just one direction provides enough toll revenue for the entire facility (whether it is a roadway or a bridge). I do like the idea of converting the bridge to all-electronic tolling. The sooner 20th century tolling and toll booths are gone, the better.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 05:54:35 PM
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.
You shouldn't largely grab numbers out of the air.
So what is your estimate?

He seemed to be thinking that it would be crushingly expensive to install two-way AET.

No one else did but I did find out what MDTA is planning on tolling --

On the Eastern Shore side of the bridge, crews also will prepare for installation of overhead tolling gantries between the Bay Bridge and MD 8 on Kent Island.  Toll operations will no longer exist approaching the bridge from Annapolis once the overhead tolling gantries are operational on Kent Island.  Motorists traveling eastbound will be tolled as they get off the bridge.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/mdta-begins-construction-bring-all-electronic-tolling-bay-bridge

IOW the toll plaza will be replaced by AET but nothing is said about westbound tolling so we can surmise that that is not being changed by this project.  Maybe it will be done in a later phase.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 06:08:23 PM
My comments were in reply to posts regarding truckers shunning the I-95 tolls in favor of utilizing 301/50.
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.
Only trucks and only between northern Delaware and Washington?

How much large truck AADT are we referring to?

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.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2020, 06:47:01 PM
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.

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.

A trucker isn't going to pay an additional $46.00 northbound and $22.00 southbound just to stay on I-95 for a single trip. If a trucker made frequent trips between either end of the two discussed routes, taking I-95 would add up fast. Hundreds, thousands, of dollars more expensive over time. Considering US-301 also has significantly less traffic, same distance, similar travel times, and completely avoids Baltimore, it's easily a better route for a trucker, and far less expensive.

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.

If you want more truck traffic on I-95, eliminate the $48.00 northbound toll at the Susquehanna River.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on January 08, 2020, 07:29:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Duke87 on January 08, 2020, 07:54:26 PM
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

If MdTA does two-way tolling on the Bay Bridge, I see no reason why they would not do so on the Hatem and Tydings Bridges as well.


At any rate, it is true that implementing two-way tolling does come at a cost compared to one-way tolling both in terms of set-up cost and in terms of operation. The marginal cost is, however, a lot less with AET than it is with manned booths.

As I see it, the question of whether to return to two-way tolling is determined largely by the traffic distorting effects of the tolls and whether having half the toll both ways might produce more favorable results.

The Boston tolls that were made two-way, for example, are all tolls it was possible to shunpike if you were willing to take a little extra time - so this would encourage people to use the crossings in the free eastbound direction, then go and take MA 99 the other way to avoid the toll. With two-way tolling, you now need to spend the extra time to take MA 99 both ways to not pay, and the money saved by doing it westbound is halved. Thus, some people who were shunpiking previously are bound to now decide it isn't worthwhile and start paying the toll more often. This causes a nominal decrease in traffic on the shunpike route and also a nominal increase in revenue.

In Maryland's case, going two-way at Hatem and Tydings may decrease the eastbound traffic over Conowingo Dam. Going two-way on the Bay Bridge doesn't do anything on its own, but if done in conjunction with the others it eliminates the ability to use US 301 + surface routes in Delaware as a long-distance shunpike route.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ixnay on January 08, 2020, 08:07:27 PM
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.

Yes, as a (radio) spot for (Delaware) EZPass on one of the Wilmington stations in the early 2000's put it, "Pay your toll while you roll!"

ixnay
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 08:53:52 PM
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.
Which 12-lane urban bridge was that?

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.

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.
OK, so the toll plaza near the Susquehanna River is one-way NB as well?  Answer=yes.

So there are more than one one-way toll plaza that are involved in these Maryland tolling imbalances.

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.

Exactly my point!
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: hbelkins on January 08, 2020, 09:11:47 PM
Regarding round trips across the Bay Bridge, I've only done that once (when I went to the Delaware meet a couple of years ago and overnighted in Annapolis) that I remember. Every other time, it's been a one-way trip, to the best of my recollection.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 1995hoo on January 08, 2020, 09:31:54 PM
^^^^

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Alps on January 08, 2020, 11:08:59 PM
^^^^

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.
I believe two-way is coming to the Verrazano shortly. The bigger wild-card is what PA will do at the Hudson crossings.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on January 09, 2020, 05:28:52 AM
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.

Plus I-95 north and south of Baltimore doesn’t have much or any capacity to spare.

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.

If I was a trucker, I would still take US-301 both ways.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 09, 2020, 07:13:04 AM
^^^^

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.
I believe two-way is coming to the Verrazano shortly. The bigger wild-card is what PA will do at the Hudson crossings.

My opinion is that the PA has to go two-way (at least at the Goethals, Outerbridge, and Bayonne) in response to the Verrazzano going back to two-way just to keep the tolls fair and consistent for all directions.  If they do not, traffic crossing the Verazzano EB coming from NJ would pay up to $25.50 while WB would only be $9.50.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2020, 09:56:06 AM
Let's give it a little thought this way.  Probably not gonna help, but what the heck...

You go to a museum.  You pay an entrance fee of $10.  You walk around, and you leave.

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?

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.

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.
Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.
So what is your general estimate?

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.

If you don't like my example, feel free to scour the internet to find a better one.

The amount of hardware and construction for a major intersection is similar.

Quote
In 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.
There are many other trip pairs other than going to I-95 in northern Delaware.

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?

I don't know dude.  My example was in direct relation to another question.  But ok, your trip pair.  You cross once.  You cross back again.  Does it matter if they charge you for a full round trip, or two one way trips?  Yes, on occasion maybe you head up north and take 95 South, or you cross via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel.  But they're rare trip diversions.

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.

At double the cost though.  And it wouldn't be for one toll plaza, but for every toll plaza.  Let's use the Delaware River for example:  Every toll bridge would need to construct a tolling point for EB traffic.  A lot of money considering that nearly everyone crossing one way will also be crossing the other way eventually.  And you just double the cost of collecting the uncollected tolls, which bring in half of what the toll had been.



Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 12:43:16 PM
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?
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.
I would not logically make a comparison to a museum fee.  You pay for a day use of the museum.

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.

Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.
So what is your general estimate?
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.
A large project with a low bid of $77,309,013.13.

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.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2020, 01:00:49 PM
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?
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.
I would not logically make a comparison to a museum fee.  You pay for a day use of the museum.

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.

Oh, you are so sweet that you think that only costs $100,000.
So what is your general estimate?
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.
A large project with a low bid of $77,309,013.13.

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.


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. 

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 01:16:32 PM
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.
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. 
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.
My conclusion was that MDTA did not publicize the figure and that it wasn't enough for them to feel the need to report.

If I was to tally up the number of hours I have spent writing posts in this one thread, it would be embarrassingly large and certainly way more than "a few hours."

But since I don't keep a spreadsheet ledger of time spent per post, I can't provide any precise figure.

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.

The bridge had two-way tolling from 1952 to 1989, and one-way tolling since then.  That is 37 and 31 years respectively, and it makes sense that that is long enough that a return to two-way tolling would be studied as a separate project.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2020, 01:39:52 PM
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.
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. 
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.
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. 

Using NJ as an example, I can go to this page https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/awards20.shtm , and view the bid results of every project NJDOT put out to bid since Fiscal Year 2011, and the price of every line item bid on.  Most never get a press release; most never see the media...but the state has that info available.  The NJ Turnpike Authority has a similar page.  Doesn't matter if the final pricetag is less than a million or over $100 million, it's available for public viewing.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 02:07:20 PM
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. 
Private sector news sources didn't either, unless I missed them.

They certainly could have obtained the figure if they wanted to.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: hbelkins on January 09, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
The museum example is apples and oranges compared to this.

Thinking back on some of my journeys across the Bay Bridge, the first time was a family vacation in the early 80s. We went from DC across the bay to the eastern shore, then down to Norfolk. A one-way crossing.

Unfortunately, with my site being down, I can't go back and look at old photo albums to see pics from those trips, but I think I used the bridge eastbound to get to Cape May to ride the ferry back in 2010.

I drove westbound only coming home from the Saturday-Sunday Norfolk-Cambridge meets in 2014.

I think I also drove it westbound only on at least one other occasion, but can't be certain.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: mrsman on January 13, 2020, 01:17:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2020, 06:18:49 AM
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.

For NYC to DC, in order to use the Trenton Makes, you can Exit at 7A from the NJ Tpk, drive 195 to 29, exit, loop around Market Street, then pick up the Trenton Makes. After the bridge, pick up Rt. 1 South to 95 South.  Not only do you avoid the bridge toll, you avoid paying the rest of the toll on the NJ Turnpike.

BUT...what if the tolls become 2 way?  Are you now wiling to pay 2 one way tolls equal to the single one way toll you were avoiding?  Would you pay $2.50 to cross the Delaware Memorial going North, but continue to shunpike on the way South?  Or are you going to want to take 95 North thru Philly, jump on US 1 North, exit to take the Trenton Makes into Trenton, then take 29 to 195 to the NJ Turnpike Northbound as well, still avoiding the tolls?

If everyone currently does what you did, the congestion thru Morrisville would be insane.  In fact, that was one of the worries when they started charging tolls on the Scudder Falls Bridge, that a lot of people would detour onto 29 and take the free Calhoun Bridge. It turns out that detour was just too far, and people accepted the fact that their free bridge into PA will now cost them. 

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. As I pointed out, if someone is willing to go thru the measures to avoid 1 toll, most likely they'll go thru the measures to avoid 2 tolls.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 13, 2020, 07:10:02 AM
Quote
In my experience, the first free Hudson crossing is really far away in Upstate.

This would be the US 9/US 20 Dunn Memorial Bridge in Albany.   The Berkshire Spur crossing is part of the Thruway system so I do not count that one.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2020, 07:17:20 AM
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 made traditional two-way toll plazas to be converted to one way in order to double the capacity without expanding the toll plaza, back in the days when electronic toll collection had not been invented.

All electronic tolling (AET) makes that an anachronism.  The additional costs to the agency are minimal and two-way tolling properly matches how the facility is used.
 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2020, 08:08:16 AM
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?

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.   The deviation isn't significant enough to warrant the cost for 2 way tolling; otherwise they would do it under the same project to convert from cash tolling to all AET tolling.

Quote
One-way tolling was a creation of increasing traffic volumes that blah blah blah.

We know.  It's been repeated ad nausem the past week.

Quote
The additional costs to the agency are minimal and two-way tolling properly matches how the facility is used.

Site documentation.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2020, 08:37:05 AM
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?
3/3.
Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.

Are you the "beneficiary" of one-way tolling?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2020, 09:07:10 AM
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?
3/3.
Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.



Site documentation, other than "Well, a few times I drove one way and came home the other way".

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. 


Are you the "beneficiary" of one-way tolling?

I live in South Jersey.  Anytime I cross a bridge into Delaware or the Philly region, I'm paying the toll.  I'm not driving 80 miles or 2 hours out of my way to save on the tolls for what is often a 15 minute ride into the city.  The most I would do is, if I'm going to some place south of Wilmington, DE, is cross the $4 Delaware Memorial and come back on the Commodore Barry, which would've been a $5 toll WB.  But, I've also crossed on the $5 Walt Whitman, done stuff in Philly, drove to Delaware, and returned on the Delaware Memorial.

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.

The way 1 way tolling is set up, most people are going to be paying a toll unless they venture far away from the highway.  Any one of us that have taken US 1 over the Susquehanna have probably noticed there's no significant traffic deviation from 95 to US 1 to avoid the $8 toll.  It's not in the toll agency's best interest to spend the money for two way tolling when one way tolling does the job, because other than a few mininal people, no one is taking the additional time and mileage to avoid the toll on 95.

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.

Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jemacedo9 on January 13, 2020, 09:57:32 AM
Its a simple question of a Cost-Benefits Analysis, right?
What are the extra costs one-time and ongoing to institute two-way tolling (of which no one has been able to figure out here yet)?

And...is there that much more WB-only traffic vs EB-only traffic to justify the extra cost?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2020, 10:38:55 AM
So what is "most," maybe 2/3?
3/3.
Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.
Site documentation, other than "Well, a few times I drove one way and came home the other way".
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. 
Like I said it would require origin-and-destination traffic engineering studies, to determine exact numbers.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2020, 11:21:35 AM
So what is "most," maybe 2/3?
3/3.
Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.
Site documentation, other than "Well, a few times I drove one way and came home the other way".
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. 
Like I said it would require origin-and-destination traffic engineering studies, to determine exact numbers.

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.

Honestly, you're crazy.  You have cut and trimmed my quotes, then said things I didn't say.  I've answered questions, only for you to constantly move the bar and goalposts.  You've yet to site any documentation for anything you speak of.   

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2020, 11:48:34 AM
So what is "most," maybe 2/3?
3/3.
Already deconstructed in detail and dismissed.
Site documentation, other than "Well, a few times I drove one way and came home the other way".
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. 
Like I said it would require origin-and-destination traffic engineering studies, to determine exact numbers.

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.
Honestly, you're crazy. 
Personal attack.

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 said 2/3, you replied 3/3, hence my 100% remark, still above.

You cited your trips across the Delaware River, I said other people have different trips and journeys.

You said, "spending money operating twice the equipment to do the same job the current equipment is doing," I explained what would happen after AET is implemented, still 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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2020, 12:35:26 PM
I'm responding this last time, then cutting myself off from this subject with you.




I said 2/3, you replied 3/3, hence my 100% remark, still above.

No. You trimmed my comment.  My full comment related to traffic volumes:

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.

This was in direct response to the below comment. 

Are you the "beneficiary" of one-way tolling?

You asked me a question about my personal travels; I provided an answer.  You didn't ask me about the universe.  You asked me about me.




You've yet to site any documentation for anything you speak of.   
Pot-kettle.

Not even close.  Any figures I've provided, I have or can provide documentation for.

I provided all the toll rates for various bridges, tunnels and roads in MD and DE applicable to this discussion.  https://mdta.maryland.gov/Toll_Rates/rates_Index.html and https://deldot.gov/public.ejs?command=PublicTollRateUS301

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.

Derived from: https://www.roads.maryland.gov/Traffic_Volume_Maps/Traffic_Volume_Maps.pdf .  Click on AnneArundel & QueenAnnes Counties.

Also, I provided the below with an explanation of it was the best I could do based on my research.  You choose to read further into it by announcing the total cost, including parts not applicable to our discussion.

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.

Maybe it will.  Maybe it won't.  For the time being, there's absolutely no discussion in regards to reviewing it.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: hbelkins on January 13, 2020, 01:39:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2020, 02:44:00 PM
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 never have done that if the tunnels were uncongested, even back when there was only the one tunnel, and there was no electronic tolling back then, and tolls were collected in both directions.  For that matter the Beltway had 6 lanes and was a more modern design than the 4-lane Harbor Tunnel Thruway.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on January 13, 2020, 04:20:54 PM
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.

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. Most traffic still opts to use it, though about 5,000 AADT has diverted to other, out of the way, and more congested routes that add at least 20-35 minutes each way during peak hours and 10-15 miles onto what would be a 3 mile trip. When it comes to toll roads, this is the one I use the most, at least 5 times per month, more in some cases. Well worth the $1.16 each way, and saves a decent amount of time during congested periods. Contrary to VA-168, which rarely I even go to south of the toll road on that corridor, but when I do, I will for the most part use the parallel 2-lane road without question, deliberately exiting at the last exit before toll from the freeway and re-joining it south of the toll road. I've only used it during congested times during off-peak season, on a couple long-distance trips down to the Outer Banks where $3 was a wash on a long-distance drive, and sometimes at night in poor weather conditions.

What is 15 more miles if you are on a 200+ mile trip?
According to you, vanity.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: odditude on January 13, 2020, 04:41:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on January 13, 2020, 04:42:42 PM
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.
Especially when I-695 is congested as much as the tunnels.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2020, 05:21:03 PM
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.

What is 15 more miles if you are on a 200+ mile trip?
According to you, vanity.
You missed my sarcasm...
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on January 13, 2020, 05:41:19 PM
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.

A very successful project IMO, especially considering it was developed by the city and not VDOT. The same applies with the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway and VA-168 Oak Grove Connector. The next major undertaking needs to be expanding the VA-168 corridor from 4 to 8 lanes between I-64 and VA-165 including a parallel 4-lane bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway providing 65 ft of vertical clearance, and a major overhaul of the Oak Grove Interchange including at least two 2-lane flyovers. The interchange at VA-168 Business also needs an improvement, the substandard cloverleaf cannot handle the volumes at peak hours. My opinion is that converting to a diverging diamond would satisfy a lot of the problems. The interchange with VA-165 also has traffic issues, though is planned to be converted to a displaced left turn diamond interchange starting around 2025, a city developed project costing around $5 million.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on January 14, 2020, 12:21:23 AM
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.

So the two interchanges on US-17 to the east of the bridge provide northerly access without a toll.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: SteveG1988 on January 19, 2020, 08:43:11 AM
Some trucking companies force routing to avoid toll roads, i haven't worked for one but i know for a fact at least one that likes red trucks and is from Wisconsin does. You cannot use the Jane Adams Toll Road, must use US20. They perfer 94 through chicago instead of 294, and you cannot use the chicago skyway to avoid traffic on 94 and 80/94 going to lake station, if your final destination authorizes the use of the indiana toll road.

In a truck i have used my perogative to use 301 down through MD to get away from baltimore and a good chunk of DC-BAL traffic. It wasn't to shunpike. My company both then, and this new one, don't care about tolls, they expect us to use our perogative and knowledge to take the best route to get the load there safely and on time. 301/50 through MD can save time versus 95 though baltimore, but the downside is there are at most to my memory 2 truck stops along 301 once you get into MD, and one rest area. If you are coming out of NJ you have to keep an eye on your fuel gauge, because there are no major truck stop chains once you hit DE.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: hbelkins on January 19, 2020, 03:34:17 PM
^^^

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.?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ipeters61 on January 22, 2020, 06:35:15 PM
^^^

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 03, 2020, 09:00:29 AM
^^^

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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2020, 04:18:36 PM
^^^

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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 04, 2020, 11:10:19 AM
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).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: ixnay on February 04, 2020, 07:03:39 PM
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.

The Trailway Truck Stop at 301 and 304, just east of the interchange (S/E corner of same).

Quote
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).

The New Transit Truck Stop, wedged between the Veterans Hwy. and I-97 itself.  S/B truckers have to overshoot it by 1/4 mile, exit at exit 10A, then turn left on Vets Hwy. and double back.

ixnay
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 22, 2020, 03:55:55 PM
The MDTA has had a request for proposals to replace large parts of the WPL Bridge deck on the eastbound side of the crossing out since 2019.  The deadline for contractors to respond is in April 15, 2020. 

They are not planning to replace all of the deck in one big contract.  This proposed contract covers the deck truss part of the span from where the deck truss begins prior to the suspension span, does not include the suspension span itself, then continues along the section between the suspension span and the cantilever structure as as the bridge approaches the Kent Island side of the crossing. This project will replace about 42% of the eastbound bridge deck, make the deck about 4 feet wider, and MDTA is suggesting that it will take 550 days to complete the project.

The contract documents are available until the contract submission deadline on April 15, 2020 here (https://emma.maryland.gov/page.aspx/en/bpm/process_manage_extranet/22935).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2020, 08:51:56 AM
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.

I then found this article about it this morning:

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/westbound-work-on-bay-bridge-complete-lanes-reopen/32003572# (https://www.wbaltv.com/article/westbound-work-on-bay-bridge-complete-lanes-reopen/32003572#)
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2020, 09:47:40 AM
Traffic has been down for about 3 weeks. I doubt they could complete a year's worth of work in a short time span...with almost no advanced planning to do so.

Could also be there's other work to be done...just off the roadway or out of sight of the traveler.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 09:51:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jemacedo9 on April 01, 2020, 10:29:58 AM
It has been a very mild winter also...so maybe there was opportunity to do more of the work than normal...assuming that there were probably weather contingencies built into the original schedule.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: 1995hoo on April 01, 2020, 10:44:37 AM
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/
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2020, 11:11:49 AM
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/

Here it is straight from the source:

https://governor.maryland.gov/2020/04/01/governor-hogan-announces-bay-bridge-westbound-right-lane-reopened-today-more-than-a-year-ahead-of-schedule/

Hogan originally directed MDTA to expedite the project last fall after those first few weekends where there was outrage over the 10+ mile delays.  For example, I think the original plan had been to reopen the lane temporarily during the Thanksgiving travel period, but instead they kept it closed throughout the project.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 09:50:42 PM
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/
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2020, 10:29:21 PM
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/

Well, yeah, jmacs already linked a story where it says the same thing.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 10:29:32 PM
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/
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

Try disabling JavaScript. Should be able to read. If you're using Chrome, click on the lock icon in the upper left corner, "Site Settings", and disable "JavaScript". Works pretty much on any paywall site.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 10:38:58 PM
Nope, paywalled out.  I could always go to another machine, if I really want to see the article, I have two Win 10 machines and two Win 7 machines.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jmacswimmer on May 06, 2020, 08:35:00 AM
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
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2020, 01:13:06 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
“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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Mr_Northside on August 11, 2020, 03:33:47 PM
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)
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jmacswimmer on August 11, 2020, 04:16:24 PM
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)

Interesting...because I used the Bay Bridge on May 16th and have yet to see that charge on my account (which is thru MDTA, no less).  Might be crossing over again on Saturday, so we'll see what happens.

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)
...

This is a lose-lose situation IMO...regardless of which side has the 3rd lane open, the opposite side then has to deal with squeezing down to 2 lanes (and traffic flow seems to be a little less directional than it used to be).

I spent a Saturday afternoon at Sandy Point last summer and, in true roadgeek form, mostly watched MDTA operations on the bridge.  The 3rd lane was reversed east to ease slowdowns eastbound, but then slowdowns formed westbound.  So the 3rd lane was flipped back west again, and eastbound slowdowns quickly returned.  This pattern continued all afternoon as MDTA tried to clear the backups on each side.

I don't think anything will change with this until a 3rd span opens (but of course, that's a whole separate can of worms).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 02, 2020, 10:37:56 AM
WTOP Radio: 1 option for new Chesapeake Bay crossing singled out in new report (https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/09/report-highlights-one-possible-location-for-new-chesapeake-bay-crossing/)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 02, 2020, 02:07:47 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 02, 2020, 09:19:42 PM
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. 
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: famartin on September 02, 2020, 11:45:17 PM
I’m actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on September 02, 2020, 11:47:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 03, 2020, 10:54:23 AM
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.

At least some of them have been touting ferries as an alternative to a new span.  That's a textbook example of a bad-faith alternative by project opponents, as most or all of them did not experience how bad this crossing was prior to 1952, when the two lane structure (now normally the eastbound span) opened to traffic. 

My Dad did, and has told me of waiting hours on summer weekends to cross with one of the ferries (there were two or three running during peak demand times), which  was run by the State Roads Commission (SRC), the direct predecessor to the State Highway Administration.

Ferries are inflexible, labor-intensive and generally cannot be scaled-up to handle peaks in demand (and there are plenty of those peaks in traffic crossing the Chesapeake Bay).
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: epzik8 on September 03, 2020, 11:14:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 03, 2020, 11:30:55 AM
I’m actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.

It doesn't matter what it is, someone will complain about it.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: RoadPelican on September 05, 2020, 08:15:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: famartin on September 05, 2020, 08:46:48 AM
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.

Your argument assumes that 50/301 will never be widened on the approaches. Which is silly, frankly. A new 4 lane span would allow 50/301 to be widened from 3/3 to potentially 6/6 (assuming the current eastbound span becomes reversible, which would seem very realistic given the current reversible lane set-up used for the westbound span). Widening 50/301 would be relatively easy compared to a massive new bridge. Build the bridge first, then the rest of the highway can follow later. Right now the bottleneck is the bridge, where you can never have more than 3 in each direction and never 3 in both directions. A new 4-lane bridge would allow for 4 minimum each way at all times with potential for 6 in one of those directions.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2020, 09:29:55 AM
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.

So you assume one option will have approach roads widened, but another option won't?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: froggie on September 05, 2020, 05:47:00 PM
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."
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: famartin on September 05, 2020, 07:24:43 PM
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?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2020, 08:06:23 PM
Have people here not learned that locals anywhere often don't want change?
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: seicer on September 09, 2020, 01:43:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
Post by: sprjus4 on September 09, 2020, 03:57:42 PM
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.