AARoads Forum
Regional Boards => Mid-Atlantic => Topic started by: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2014, 09:24:32 AM
-
MdTA has a big project coming up on I-895 with the replacement of the Canton Viaduct, so I thought it might deserve its own thread.
I-895 Canton Viaduct Replacement Open Houses (http://remlinedigital.com/CVR/2014-10-23/CVR%202014-10-23.html)
Wednesday
November 12, 2014
Dundalk High School
1901 Delvale Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21222
Monday
November 17, 2014
Patterson High School
100 Kane Street
Baltimore, MD 21224
Thursday
November 20, 2014
Brooklyn Park Middle School
200 Hammonds Lane
Brooklyn, MD 21225
-
Good thing they will address the viaduct, the concrete deck on that road is in horrible shape. Tearing it down and rebuilding it is going to be quite a lengthy process I imagine. Will definitely affect my trips home in the coming years.
-
Good thing they will address the viaduct, the concrete deck on that road is in horrible shape. Tearing it down and rebuilding it is going to be quite a lengthy process I imagine. Will definitely affect my trips home in the coming years.
Easily the worst section of Maryland's toll-maintained highway network.
Since a 100% shutdown is not likely to happen (though total shutdowns in the overnight hours are probably acceptable) and because the viaduct at its north end (where it passes under I-95) cannot easily be widened, I am curious what strategies the MdTA will come up with to replace the viaduct while keeping traffic moving.
-
I'll be going to the Monday night one at Patterson High School. I am curious what their strategies and timeline will be.
-
I am very curious to see what the MdTA proposals are for this viaduct. I used it quite regularly earlier this year and it is indeed in awful condition.
I would not be surprised if I-895 was fully closed for at least a few weekends, but I doubt that any such closures will happen until the re decking of the I-95 viaducts is finished.
-
The question is, do you increase capacity both ways, or just leaving the tunnel? Since the tunnel itself is just two lanes, do you keep the viaduct 4 lanes, and just give it wider shoulders, with potential to convert them into lanes?
-
Unless the jersey barriers in the median are removable, I don't think even a temporary Super-2 on that stretch of I-895 will do. Otherwise, half of the viaduct could've been kept open while the other half is taken out and worked on, a la the Wilson Bridge. However, if the last major closure (late 1980s, after the Fort McHenry Tunnel had opened to traffic for the first time) is any indication, a complete shutdown would be the best option.
-
I seem to remember reading on Toll Roads News a while back that the preferred option is to use a zipper barrier and replace it one lane at a time. So there would be two lanes in the peak direction and only one in the offpeak. Outside of rush hours, my guess is that it would operate as 2 lanes northbound/1 lane southbound. This because they would likely have to shut a NB lane at the toll plaza with only one lane through the tunnel (to avoid sudden traffic stops inside the tunnel where sight distance is limited), so you'll have a much shorter/simpler work zone if you close a SB lane.
Either way, traffic will likely be okay in the direction with 2 lanes, and theoretically won't be too too bad in the direction with 1 lane (since it is off peak).
-
Unless the jersey barriers in the median are removable, I don't think even a temporary Super-2 on that stretch of I-895 will do. Otherwise, half of the viaduct could've been kept open while the other half is taken out and worked on, a la the Wilson Bridge. However, if the last major closure (late 1980s, after the Fort McHenry Tunnel had opened to traffic for the first time) is any indication, a complete shutdown would be the best option.
The ultimate question is...why not just have it be a one lane tunnel each way, time the viaduct replacement with a tunnel refurb? Redo the NB side along with the tunnel, or even just do it like the pulaski skyway, force one direction to use alt routes, such as the I-95 tunnel, yes it would require some back tracking, but it would allow them to do it faster.
-
Baltimore Sun: Five-year construction project on I-895 north of Harbor Tunnel to begin 2016 (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-895-construction-20141113-story.html)
A major, $290 million construction project to replace a large elevated section of Interstate 895 north of the Harbor Tunnel will begin in 2016 and last for five years — causing considerable traffic congestion in the process.
The work will consist of demolishing and reconstructing a 3,300-foot elevated stretch of the highway, replacement of the ramp from the highway to Holabird Avenue, and repairs to tunnel roadway approaches and retaining walls, the Maryland Transportation Authority said.
Major construction, which will occur day and night, is expected to begin in the fall of 2016, and last through the summer of 2021. Existing lanes will be narrowed from 12 feet to 11 feet and shoulders will be closed.
The bulk of the work will be broken into four stages over four years. During those four years, one of the highway's four lanes will be closed at all times — with a different lane targeted during each year.
During morning traffic peaks, two lanes will be designated for southbound traffic, and one lane for northbound traffic. During afternoon peaks, two lanes will be northbound and one southbound.
-
Any pics of the proposals? I know Laura said she was going to try to make the meeting.
For a 60 year old roadway, sounds like a lot of work. I could understand the elevated roadway needing to be rehabbed, but taking out all the piers as well?
-
Unless the jersey barriers in the median are removable, I don't think even a temporary Super-2 on that stretch of I-895 will do. Otherwise, half of the viaduct could've been kept open while the other half is taken out and worked on, a la the Wilson Bridge. However, if the last major closure (late 1980s, after the Fort McHenry Tunnel had opened to traffic for the first time) is any indication, a complete shutdown would be the best option.
The ultimate question is...why not just have it be a one lane tunnel each way, time the viaduct replacement with a tunnel refurb? Redo the NB side along with the tunnel, or even just do it like the pulaski skyway, force one direction to use alt routes, such as the I-95 tunnel, yes it would require some back tracking, but it would allow them to do it faster.
MdTA does not like to run the tunnels in two-way operation except in the overnight hours. Even overnight, there have been some pretty nasty head-on crashes in the tunnel (remember the BHT has a relatively narrow pre-Interstate design, which is why semitrailers over 96" wide are not allowed, and why the maximum height is only 13' 6").
-
Via http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/Meeting_Schedules/Meeting_Minutes/Capital_Committee/Cap_Comm_Meeting_Minutes_07-11-2013.pdf
"Replacement of the Canton Viaduct bridge on I-895, MDTA’s only structurally deficient bridge, is currently proposed to take place in 2 construction stages beginning in Spring
2016 and lasting for a total duration of 2-1/2 years. For the duration of the project, I-895 will be reduced from 2 lanes to 1 lane in each direction and substantial traffic impacts and diversions are anticipated. The proposed construction staging is the result of Engineering’s detailed evaluation of alternatives to reduce the construction duration, reduce traffic impacts, avoid concurrent traffic impacts to multiple harbor crossings, and improve the final structure quality. The recent experience during the K-Truss construction project where 1 lane in each direction was maintained with respect to traffic impacts was a main supporter for the 2 stage construction option. However, due to the magnitude of the project, the three construction alternatives are being revisited to ensure the optimum alternative is selected."
"The three alternatives include the previously presented 4 stage construction, 2 stage construction (currently identified as the optimum alternative) and an off alignment construction. Additional investigation will be performed to quantify the traffic impacts on BHT and other Facilities during construction and this data will be compared to current traffic delays. The current budget in the MDTA’s CTP is approximately $182 million. "
-
Is shutting down all of I-895 possible? Given the limited interchanges and two alternates, it might be a cost effective and safer way of doing the job.
-
Is shutting down all of I-895 possible? Given the limited interchanges and two alternates, it might be a cost effective and safer way of doing the job.
Probably not. The 2013 AADT on the BHT is between 68,000 and 69,000 - that is (IMO) too much traffic to detour, though there is a decent amount of capacity available crossing the F.S. Key Bridge (Md. 695 or I-695), 2013 AADT between 29,000 and 30,000. The Fort McHenry Tunnel (I-95) also has some capacity at the tunnel itself, 2013 AADT between 119,000 and 120,000, but perhaps not north of the tunnel, where some sections of I-95 are only three lanes each way (6 total).
There's also the matter of the MdTA Trust Agreement. Not sure that the holders of MdTA bonds would be very pleased with the total closure of a major revenue-generating facility (even though the two closest alternate routes are also MdTA toll crossings).
-
Yeah, once you start detouring everyone, people will quickly discover that I-695 north of the city is free, even with more traffic. MdTA doesn't want that. I think in off peak hours, a full closure could work, but definitely not during the peak. The traffic coming in and out of Baltimore during rush hour depends on lots of the traffic bypassing downtown on 895 to "clear the way" for local traffic on 95.
695 over the Key Bridge is not a bad ride at all, maybe only 8-10 minutes longer than 95 or 895.
-
Yeah, once you start detouring everyone, people will quickly discover that I-695 north of the city is free, even with more traffic. MdTA doesn't want that.
Agreed. I do not like driving I-695 across the "top" of Baltimore - seems to take forever as compared to I-95 or I-895, but still, I don't think they want to "teach" people a "free" shunpike route like that.
I think in off peak hours, a full closure could work, but definitely not during the peak. The traffic coming in and out of Baltimore during rush hour depends on lots of the traffic bypassing downtown on 895 to "clear the way" for local traffic on 95.
I-895 is definitely a good "bail" route (for those that know about it headed north or south through Baltimore). It is also the better route for auto traffic (most commercial vehicles are too wide or too long for I-895) headed through Baltimore to and from I-97 to the south.
695 over the Key Bridge is not a bad ride at all, maybe only 8-10 minutes longer than 95 or 895.
I agree. Only time I don't like the FSK is when winds are blowing hard.
-
Yeah, once you start detouring everyone, people will quickly discover that I-695 north of the city is free, even with more traffic. MdTA doesn't want that.
Agreed. I do not like driving I-695 across the "top" of Baltimore - seems to take forever as compared to I-95 or I-895, but still, I don't think they want to "teach" people a "free" shunpike route like that.
You mean going around the west side? That's about a 15 minute shunpike without factoring in traffic. Don't even bother trying during any peak hours.
iPhone
-
Unless the jersey barriers in the median are removable, I don't think even a temporary Super-2 on that stretch of I-895 will do. Otherwise, half of the viaduct could've been kept open while the other half is taken out and worked on, a la the Wilson Bridge. However, if the last major closure (late 1980s, after the Fort McHenry Tunnel had opened to traffic for the first time) is any indication, a complete shutdown would be the best option.
The ultimate question is...why not just have it be a one lane tunnel each way, time the viaduct replacement with a tunnel refurb? Redo the NB side along with the tunnel, or even just do it like the pulaski skyway, force one direction to use alt routes, such as the I-95 tunnel, yes it would require some back tracking, but it would allow them to do it faster.
MdTA does not like to run the tunnels in two-way operation except in the overnight hours. Even overnight, there have been some pretty nasty head-on crashes in the tunnel (remember the BHT has a relatively narrow pre-Interstate design, which is why semitrailers over 96" wide are not allowed, and why the maximum height is only 13' 6").
How wide is the tunnel compared to the middle tube of the Lincoln (NJ-NY) Tunnel, which runs 2 way traffic with the buses each day?
-
Yeah, once you start detouring everyone, people will quickly discover that I-695 north of the city is free, even with more traffic. MdTA doesn't want that.
Agreed. I do not like driving I-695 across the "top" of Baltimore - seems to take forever as compared to I-95 or I-895, but still, I don't think they want to "teach" people a "free" shunpike route like that.
You mean going around the west side? That's about a 15 minute shunpike without factoring in traffic. Don't even bother trying during any peak hours.
That's it - past the 83's and I-795, back to I-70 to U.S. 29, or back to I-95 on the southwest side.
Seems to take much more than 15 minutes - it is not fun at all during peak periods (it can be awful on weekends too).
-
How wide is the tunnel compared to the middle tube of the Lincoln (NJ-NY) Tunnel, which runs 2 way traffic with the buses each day?
I don't know the dimensions of that tube - but I do know that the drivers of those buses are professionals, and I think they are better-able to handle a two-way tunnel crossing like that than many "normal" drivers.
Tube dimensions (from the Port Authority here (http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/lincoln-tunnel-facts-info.html)).
-
Is shutting down all of I-895 possible? Given the limited interchanges and two alternates, it might be a cost effective and safer way of doing the job.
Probably not. The 2013 AADT on the BHT is between 68,000 and 69,000 - that is (IMO) too much traffic to detour, though there is a decent amount of capacity available crossing the F.S. Key Bridge (Md. 695 or I-695), 2013 AADT between 29,000 and 30,000. The Fort McHenry Tunnel (I-95) also has some capacity at the tunnel itself, 2013 AADT between 119,000 and 120,000, but perhaps not north of the tunnel, where some sections of I-95 are only three lanes each way (6 total).
Judging from Google Earth, I-95 has a left shoulder north of the tunnel. What about restriping that into a temporary traffic lane? If you combine that with the spare capacity of the Key Bridge, it could be able to process the detoured traffic. I suppose you can save a lot of money by shortening construction time from 5 to 2 years to replace the viaduct.
-
Judging from Google Earth, I-95 has a left shoulder north of the tunnel. What about restriping that into a temporary traffic lane? If you combine that with the spare capacity of the Key Bridge, it could be able to process the detoured traffic. I suppose you can save a lot of money by shortening construction time from 5 to 2 years to replace the viaduct.
MdTA does have plans to make I-95 a continuous 8 lane roadway from the Fort McHenry Tunnel toll plaza (on the north side of the crossing), but I don't think they contemplate doing it on a "temporary" basis.
I agree that a total closure would allow the project to be completed much more quickly, but I still suspect that the bondholders (and their trustee) would not like that.
From my perspective, making the Canton Viaduct a Super-2 type road for the duration of the project would speed things up, though there would be some delays, especially during the periods of peak demand on the crossing.
-
Another option is to shut down the road in one direction ala Pulaski Skyway. Closing it northbound wouldn't be as disruptive (no lane drop on I-95 north).
I have driven the center tube of the Lincoln Tunnel in two way operation heading back to NJ, it didn't seem that bad, but there wasn't a high speed freeway on each end so speeds were reasonably sane.
-
Yeah, once you start detouring everyone, people will quickly discover that I-695 north of the city is free, even with more traffic. MdTA doesn't want that.
Agreed. I do not like driving I-695 across the "top" of Baltimore - seems to take forever as compared to I-95 or I-895, but still, I don't think they want to "teach" people a "free" shunpike route like that.
You mean going around the west side? That's about a 15 minute shunpike without factoring in traffic. Don't even bother trying during any peak hours.
I find US 40 to 295 or 395 faster than the long way.
-
Yeah, once you start detouring everyone, people will quickly discover that I-695 north of the city is free, even with more traffic. MdTA doesn't want that.
Agreed. I do not like driving I-695 across the "top" of Baltimore - seems to take forever as compared to I-95 or I-895, but still, I don't think they want to "teach" people a "free" shunpike route like that.
You mean going around the west side? That's about a 15 minute shunpike without factoring in traffic. Don't even bother trying during any peak hours.
I find US 40 to 295 or 395 faster than the long way.
IMO, that depends on time of day, and also the lack of events at Camden Yards or M&T Bank Stadium.
U.S. 40 (Orleans Street) can be ugly through the Johns Hopkins Medical Campus when a lot of staff people leave in the afternoons.
-
Has construction on the Canton Viaduct replacement project started? I am not finding much online about actual work and most articles are from 2011 and 2014. I read either spring or fall 2016 for a start date.
-
Has construction on the Canton Viaduct replacement project started? I am not finding much online about actual work and most articles are from 2011 and 2014. I read either spring or fall 2016 for a start date.
Nothing on the state's Electronic Marketplace site so far.
There is a bridge repair project for several structures north of the Canton Viaduct, but nothing showing for the viaduct replacement yet.
-
The following website describes some of the civil engineering work involved in the replacement of the Canton Viaduct.
https://www.wrallp.com/our-work/replacement-i-895-canton-viaduct-over-i-95-ramps-railroads-city-streets
-
Drove I-895 both ways over the weekend.
The contractor has started work at the Patapsco Flats Bridge (this is the fairly long bridge between Md. 295 (B-W Parkway) and the Glen Burnie Bypass (I-895B/I-97)) about a mile or two south of the toll plaza.
There's a new staging yard on the northbound side between I-695 and Md. 295, and the right northbound lane crossing the bridge has been closed for now. The taper starts prior to the Md. 295 interchange, so that traffic entering from the Parkway has a better opportunity to merge.
No signs of activity yet southbound, though the DMS units warned of work starting this week (02 August). EDIT: See memo from the MDTA here (http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/News/MDTA_Traffic_Advisories/24-7-right-lane-closure-on-southbound-i-895-near-baltimore-washington-parkway).
It appears that a lane will be blocked southbound, so the existing Jersey barrier in the middle can be demolished and a new movable barrier can be installed (no signs of the movable barrier - yet). Once the movable barrier is in place, the road can operate with 2 lanes in the peak direction, and 1 lane in the off-peak.
This is the same lane configuration that is contemplated for the Canton Viaduct replacement project just north of the north portal to the tunnel (this project has not been advertised for bidding yet).
-
Drove I-895 both ways over the weekend.
The contractor has started work at the Patapsco Flats Bridge (this is the fairly long bridge between Md. 295 (B-W Parkway) and the Glen Burnie Bypass (I-895B/I-97)) about a mile or two south of the toll plaza.
There's a new staging yard on the northbound side between I-695 and Md. 295, and the right northbound lane crossing the bridge has been closed for now. The taper starts prior to the Md. 295 interchange, so that traffic entering from the Parkway has a better opportunity to merge.
No signs of activity yet southbound, though the DMS units warned of work starting this week (02 August). EDIT: See memo from the MDTA here (http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/News/MDTA_Traffic_Advisories/24-7-right-lane-closure-on-southbound-i-895-near-baltimore-washington-parkway).
It appears that a lane will be blocked southbound, so the existing Jersey barrier in the middle can be demolished and a new movable barrier can be installed (no signs of the movable barrier - yet). Once the movable barrier is in place, the road can operate with 2 lanes in the peak direction, and 1 lane in the off-peak.
This is the same lane configuration that is contemplated for the Canton Viaduct replacement project just north of the north portal to the tunnel (this project has not been advertised for bidding yet).
The project page seems to indicate they're planning on one lane in each direction (no reversible lane).
In later stages of construction, there will be two-way traffic on southbound I-895 - one lane in each direction - for about one year while crews work on the northbound side of the bridge. When complete, two-way traffic will operate on northbound I-895 for about one year while crews work on the southbound side.
http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/Capital_Projects/I-895_Patapsco_Flats.html
-
The project page seems to indicate they're planning on one lane in each direction (no reversible lane).
Thanks.
I had read someplace that a set-up similar to what is proposed for the Canton Viaduct (2 lanes peak, 1 lane off-peak) was to be used at Patapsco Flats as well.
Perhaps enough traffic uses the I-895 "B Spur" (to I-97 and Md. 2) that it's not warranted at Patapsco Flats?
-
Perhaps enough traffic uses the I-895 "B Spur" (to I-97 and Md. 2) that it's not warranted at Patapsco Flats?
Per 2015 traffic volume maps, the Patapsco Flats has just over half the traffic volume of the Canton Viaduct.
-
Perhaps enough traffic uses the I-895 "B Spur" (to I-97 and Md. 2) that it's not warranted at Patapsco Flats?
Per 2015 traffic volume maps, the Patapsco Flats has just over half the traffic volume of the Canton Viaduct.
Also a fun note that the B Spur is to MD 2 and the A Spur is to I-97. So CP should have said "the I-895 spurs". :)
-
I remember when my family and I would be almost the only ones on I-895 after the I-97 split. That stretch seems more crowded these days. I don't know if I prefer the Harbor Tunnel over Fort McHenry.
-
Anyone know what the deal is with the Canton Viaduct replacement project?
Has it fallen victim to the toll cuts that Larry Hogan pushed through? As best as I can tell, it has not shown up on e-Maryland Marketplace (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/) (where state (and most county and municipal) construction projects are advertised for bids).
Back in November 2014, the Sun reported (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-895-construction-20141113-story.html) that the project would be under way in 2016, which is at this point an impossibility.
Looking at the Web site of the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) (the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Baltimore and suburbs, is housed at BMC), it appears that the project to make I-95 four lanes both ways from the I-95/I-895 "split" on the northeast side of Baltimore City to the Fort McHenry Tunnel was moved-up from 2030 to 2018, in part because of the Canton Viaduct project. See this resolution (http://www.baltometro.org/phocadownload/Committees/BRTB/BRTBRes17-9.pdf) (.pdf), which explicitly justifies the I-95 widening in part because of the Canton Viaduct, though there is no explicit mention of advertising the Canton Viaduct project being delayed.
Reconfigure (restripe) northbound and southbound I-95 to provide four continuous mainline lanes in each direction. Will include reconstructing at-grade shoulders, replacing at-grade median concrete traffic barrier, and reconstructing portions of existing bridge decks and concrete bridge parapets. This will not require any additional widening of the highway. Construction will involve temporary lane closures and night work (to maintain traffic in all lanes during peak travel periods).
2018 (the year of operation in the November 2015 Maximize2040 plan was 2030, and the project originally was tested in the air quality conformity model for 2030)
$51.102 million (year of expenditure) – covered entirely by toll revenues
MDTA is advancing construction work on the Canton Viaduct segment of I-895. MDTA expects that work on the Canton Viaduct will divert traffic from I-895 to I-95. Advancing this I-95 lane reconfiguration project will help to accommodate the diverted traffic. It also will improve safety by providing a higher roadside concrete traffic barrier and bridge parapet
-
Anyone know what the deal is with the Canton Viaduct replacement project?
Has it fallen victim to the toll cuts that Larry Hogan pushed through? As best as I can tell, it has not shown up on e-Maryland Marketplace (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/) (where state (and most county and municipal) construction projects are advertised for bids).
Per the draft 2017 transportation plan, looks like it has been pushed back to at least CY 2017 (if not 2018). The widening of I-95 is probably the reason why it was pushed back.
http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/CTP/CTP_17_22_Draft/Documents/Maryland_Transportation_Authority.pdf
-
Per the draft 2017 transportation plan, looks like it has been pushed back to at least CY 2017 (if not 2018). The widening of I-95 is probably the reason why it was pushed back.
http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/CTP/CTP_17_22_Draft/Documents/Maryland_Transportation_Authority.pdf
Thanks. Had not occurred to me to look at the new CTP (was not aware that they put it online before the final version was approved).
-
This may be a stupid question, but why do they continue to do the two-way traffic shenanigans at nighttime in the Harbor Tunnel???
-
Probably to do maintenance.
-
This may be a stupid question, but why do they continue to do the two-way traffic shenanigans at nighttime in the Harbor Tunnel???
The alternative is to shut one direction completely down, since most work on the tunnels is only done with the tube is completely shut-down.
The MDTA has been running "two-way" operation for many years at the BHT. In the 1980's, after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened in 1985, they ran "two-way" for several years as one tube was completely shut-down for a through reconstruction, followed by the other.
-
An invitation for bids (IFB) for the replacement of the Canton Viaduct was recently posted to the eMaryland Marketplace (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/) Web site. The solicitation number is: MDJ0731032898
Until the bids are opened (scheduled for August 2017), the bid documents can be found here (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?bidId=MDJ0731032898&parentUrl=activeBids).
The scope of work is significantly more than just the replacement of the viaduct.
It is titled as:
Contract No. HT-694-000-006
REPLACEMENT OF CANTON VIADUCT
I-895 OVER I-95 RAMPS, RAILROADS & CITY STS.
AND REHABILITATION OF BALTIMORE HARBOR TUNNEL & TUNNEL APPROACHES
PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK
1. The project, located in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Howard Counties, and Baltimore City, will replace Bridge BCY102001 (I-895 over City streets, I-95 ramps, and active railroads, and crosses under the I-95 Viaduct) and BCY103001 (Holabird Avenue exit ramp over CSXT and Ponca Street) using multiple stages of construction. The existing roadway beyond the limits of the I-895 bridge will be reconstructed for 620 feet from the north tunnel approach to the south end of BCY102001 and for 180 feet north of BCY102001. The existing pavement beyond the limits of full depth reconstruction will be grinded and resurfaced approximately 1715 feet to the north of BCY102001. The project includes the replacement of existing retaining walls on the Holabird Avenue Ramp and construction of new retained fill sections at the south end of BCY102001. The project also includes the rehabilitation of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, including a new concrete deck overlay inside the tunnel and along the approaches to the tunnel, repairs to the tunnel tile wall, refurnishing of the fire suppression system, replacement of the drainage sump pumps, and repairs to the retaining walls along the approaches to the tunnel. The total project will extend about 2.9 miles, from mile marker 8.80, south of the tunnel, to mile marker 11.65, just north of the Boston Street/Interstate Avenue underpass.
The work includes but is not limited to:
a. Replacement of I-895 Canton Viaduct bridge (Bridge BCY102001), piers, and foundations
b. Replacement of the Holabird Avenue ramp bridge (Bridge BCY103001), piers, and foundations
c. Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls using conventional backfill and lightweight foamed concrete backfill (Retaining Wall BCY101R02, BCY101R03, and BCY104R02)
d. Full depth roadway construction, base widening, patching, grinding, resurfacing, and wedge and level
e. Replacement of W beam traffic barrier and end treatments
f. Replacement of concrete barrier
g. Stormdrain improvements
h. Signing and marking
i. Maintenance of Traffic
j. Lighting/electrical and ITS modifications
k. Relocation of existing utilities including water mains, sanitary sewer force main, and fiber optic utility. Installation of one water main requires jack and bore under active railroad tracks
l. Stormwater Management Facilities including an underground extended detention stormwater storage
m. Landscaping
n. Erosion and Sediment Control
o. Earthwork
p. Remove the specified amount of the existing wearing surface material mechanically or through hydro demolition and place latex modified concrete (LMC) in the tunnel and on the tunnel approaches.
q. Tunnel approach retaining wall repairs
r. Refurnish the fire suppression standpipe system, replace fire department connection valves and cabinets, replace pumps and associated electrical elements, replace heat tracing system, upgrade fire alarm system, and construct new fire pump rooms in the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel.
s. Replace drainage sump pumps. The Contractor is hereby notified that the existing mid-river sump pumps inside of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel (BHT) are currently operating in a reduced capacity. The Contractor may be required to perform the sump pump replacement work at any time during the project duration at the direction of the Engineer.
t. Removing existing ceramic tiles, repairing unsound substrate concrete, epoxy injection of cracks, and installing new ceramic tiles on the Baltimore Harbor tunnel walls.
u. Incidental labor, material, and work, such as temporary at-grade railroad crossings and temporary access roads, to accomplish aforementioned items of work.
The I-895 mainline replacement bridge is a 3,155 feet long, continuous straight and curved steel plate girder, with retained fill approaches. The Holabird Avenue Ramp replacement is a 410 feet long curved steel plate girder bridge with a retaining wall section of 260 feet. The new mainline structure will contain 19 spans on the northbound bridge and 18 spans on the southbound bridge, ranging from 89 feet to 239 feet. Features include an integral pier cap to preserve a 36” water main, a cast-in-place concrete deck, and Grade 75 stainless steel reinforcement. The abutments for the I-895 mainline bridge and the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Area will be backfilled with lightweight foamed concrete fill (LFCF). The project foundations will be a combination of micropiles and steel H-piles. The existing site conditions reveal contaminated soils which will be handled appropriately per the specifications provided.
There are four (4) main stages of construction for the replacement of Bridge BCY102001 and BCY103001 – Stages 1, 2, 3, and 4. During Stage 1, work will include the reconstruction of the approach shoulders, construction of portions of the Bridge BCY102001 foundations and substructure units, construction of temporary access roads and grade crossings, relocation of existing utilities, and construction of new high mast lights and intelligent transportation system (ITS) devices. During Stage 2, the northbound portion of Bridge BCY102001 and entire portion of Bridge BCY103001 will be demolished and replaced while traffic is maintained on the southbound portion of Bridge BCY102001. During Stage 3, the southbound portion of Bridge BCY102001 will be demolished and replaced while traffic is maintained on the northbound portion of Bridge BCY102001. During Stage 4, work will include the construction of the stormwater management facilities, installation of the landscaping, construction of the median barrier, and placement of the final surface course of the asphalt pavement. Maintenance of Traffic will maintain one lane in each direction throughout Stages 2 and 3, with limited full roadway closures in one direction as specified in the specifications provided. Holabird Avenue Ramp will be fully closed for the duration of the project, whereas some City streets, as well as the I-95 ramps, will be closed intermittently. Temporary construction access roads will be required to gain access to some pier demolition and construction sites, as will temporary at-grade railroad track crossings with continuous railroad company coordination.
Neither Stage 2 nor Stage 3 Maintenance of Traffic can be implemented earlier than November 27, 2018.
Traffic barriers, signing, striping, and lighting will be upgraded and/or replaced. Full depth asphalt pavement, patching, wedging, leveling, and resurfacing will be performed along the at-grade sections of I-895 within the project limits. The I-895 overhead detection system will remain in effect for the entire duration of the project. Stormwater management facilities will be implemented throughout the project site, including an underground extended detention stormwater storage facility.
A 16 inch Baltimore City water main will be relocated within the project limits, and subsequent resurfacing along city streets. The Fort McHenry Tunnel Service road will be relocated as it passes under the Canton Viaduct due to pier relocations; and minor improvements to the Canton Railroad company parking lot and Norfolk Southern Distribution Services’ access road (referred to herein as the Lumber Yard Access Road) will be necessary due to pier reconstruction and impacts.
A related MDTA contact solicitation number MDJ0731033122 , to build a duct bank for the relocation of underground electric lines, can be found here (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?bidId=MDJ0731033122&parentUrl=activeBids).
-
An invitation for bids (IFB) for the replacement of the Canton Viaduct was recently posted to the eMaryland Marketplace (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/) Web site. The solicitation number is: MDJ0731032898
The scope of work is significantly more than just the replacement of the viaduct.
It is titled as:
Contract No. HT-694-000-006
REPLACEMENT OF CANTON VIADUCT
I-895 OVER I-95 RAMPS, RAILROADS & CITY STS.
AND REHABILITATION OF BALTIMORE HARBOR TUNNEL & TUNNEL APPROACHES
Thanks!
Is it still estimated at about $280 million?
-
An invitation for bids (IFB) for the replacement of the Canton Viaduct was recently posted to the eMaryland Marketplace (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/) Web site. The solicitation number is: MDJ0731032898
The scope of work is significantly more than just the replacement of the viaduct.
It is titled as:
Contract No. HT-694-000-006
REPLACEMENT OF CANTON VIADUCT
I-895 OVER I-95 RAMPS, RAILROADS & CITY STS.
AND REHABILITATION OF BALTIMORE HARBOR TUNNEL & TUNNEL APPROACHES
Thanks!
Is it still estimated at about $280 million?
With the added tunnel work it has to be more. Will look in the MDTA part of the CTP later today.
-
An invitation for bids (IFB) for the replacement of the Canton Viaduct was recently posted to the eMaryland Marketplace (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/) Web site. The solicitation number is: MDJ0731032898
The scope of work is significantly more than just the replacement of the viaduct.
It is titled as:
Contract No. HT-694-000-006
REPLACEMENT OF CANTON VIADUCT
I-895 OVER I-95 RAMPS, RAILROADS & CITY STS.
AND REHABILITATION OF BALTIMORE HARBOR TUNNEL & TUNNEL APPROACHES
Thanks!
Is it still estimated at about $280 million?
With the added tunnel work it has to be more. Will look in the MDTA part of the CTP later today.
I saw that cost about a year ago for the replacement of the Canton Viaduct itself, which is 0.9 mile of 4-lane bridge with 10-foot right shoulders.
It is horrible how much the cost of highway construction has increased since about 2006-08. That project was estimated at $175 million in about 2013. Even that was an enormous figure.
-
I saw that cost about a year ago for the replacement of the Canton Viaduct itself, which is 0.9 mile of 4-lane bridge with 10-foot right shoulders.
It is horrible how much the cost of highway construction has increased since about 2006-08. That project was estimated at $175 million in about 2013. Even that was an enormous figure.
The 2017 Consolidated Transportation Program (http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office_of_Planning_and_Capital_Programming/CTP/Index.html) shows an estimated cost of about $273 million for the total replacement of the Canton Viaduct, but that does not include any work in the tunnel tubes, and the scope of this project includes a lot of work there. So the answer is I don't know what the estimated cost for the viaduct plus the tunnel work will end up being.
Regarding construction costs, apparently they have gone up a lot since the 2007/2008 recession got going. Maryland was fortunate in that the bids for most of MD-200 were advertised in the middle of the recession, and as a result the construction work ended up costing less than what the budget had assumed.
-
I saw that cost about a year ago for the replacement of the Canton Viaduct itself, which is 0.9 mile of 4-lane bridge with 10-foot right shoulders.
It is horrible how much the cost of highway construction has increased since about 2006-08. That project was estimated at $175 million in about 2013. Even that was an enormous figure.
The 2017 Consolidated Transportation Program (http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office_of_Planning_and_Capital_Programming/CTP/Index.html) shows an estimated cost of about $273 million for the total replacement of the Canton Viaduct, but that does not include any work in the tunnel tubes, and the scope of this project includes a lot of work there. So the answer is I don't know what the estimated cost for the viaduct plus the tunnel work will end up being.
What about this segment listed in the announcement? Is that part of the $273 million?
b. Replacement of the Holabird Avenue ramp bridge (Bridge BCY103001), piers, and foundations
Regarding construction costs, apparently they have gone up a lot since the 2007/2008 recession got going.
Unit costs have about doubled since then. Surprisingly little analysis has been published.
Maryland was fortunate in that the bids for most of MD-200 were advertised in the middle of the recession, and as a result the construction work ended up costing less than what the budget had assumed.
Fortunate that the Woodrow Wilson Project was not delayed by the opponents. Delaying it 5 years probably would have doubled the cost ($2.4 billion as completed), and it might not have gotten built at least not yet.
-
What about this segment listed in the announcement? Is that part of the $273 million?
b. Replacement of the Holabird Avenue ramp bridge (Bridge BCY103001), piers, and foundations
That's effectively part of the Canton Viaduct, even though MDTA considers it a separate structure. I believe the plan was always to replace that ramp along with the mainline Canton Viaduct.
-
The Baltimore Sun has some fairly recent pictures of the Canton Viaduct, including close-ups of some of its deterioration (it is the only toll-maintained structure in Maryland that is classified as "structurally deficient") here (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-md-canton-viaduct-pg-photogallery.html).
-
What is the deal with Exit 9 (Childs St.) on this road? Seems kinda pointless to have an exit after paying the toll but right before the tunnel! Traffic entering south here has to pay the toll too. That's one expensive ramp.
-
Access to the port and industrial facilities on Wagners Point. The alternative is a minimum of 3 miles along surface streets.
-
What is the deal with Exit 9 (Childs St.) on this road? Seems kinda pointless to have an exit after paying the toll but right before the tunnel! Traffic entering south here has to pay the toll too. That's one expensive ramp.
It's useful if you want to clinch one of the I-895 spurs, the northern part of I-695, and I-795 in the same day without paying even more tolls (via MD 2 and I-95). Granted, probably not the reason they put the exit in. And it was one expensive clinch, especially for half a mile of road (I-278 was similarly expensive, but only because I did not realize that the Bayonne Bridge was closed, so I had to scrap a planned clinch of NY/NJ 440).
-
I'd be interested to know if this project will retain the STAY IN LANE mosaics in the tiled walls within the Harbor Tunnel, or if they will be removed and not replaced when the tiling is redone.
-
I'd be interested to know if this project will retain the STAY IN LANE mosaics in the tiled walls within the Harbor Tunnel, or if they will be removed and not replaced when the tiling is redone.
You might be able to discern that from the plans on the Maryland Marketplace site with the project advertisement above.
-
Interesting thing with those plans is not only do they indicate if speed cameras will be used, they mark exactly where the camera vehicle will be. They will only use them southbound, I assume because the law restricts their use around bridges or tunnels (making it hard to use northbound).
-
What is the deal with Exit 9 (Childs St.) on this road? Seems kinda pointless to have an exit after paying the toll but right before the tunnel! Traffic entering south here has to pay the toll too. That's one expensive ramp.
The ramps have been there as long as I can remember (back to the 1960's) but were only signed sometime in the 1980's.
Before that, they were only for vehicles belonging to the state, though apparently anyone could legally use them, since the ramps were never signed as OFFICIAL USE ONLY or similar.
I think they were signed to improve truck access to and from the intermodal facilities in the Fairfield area of Baltimore City (especially seaport and pipeline terminals (most HAZMAT loads are banned from the tunnel but may exit northbound and enter southbound at these ramps)).
-
Interesting thing with those plans is not only do they indicate if speed cameras will be used, they mark exactly where the camera vehicle will be. They will only use them southbound, I assume because the law restricts their use around bridges or tunnels (making it hard to use northbound).
It may be a practical matter, since the tunnel will be running with only one lane per direction through much of this project, and the plans may assume that northbound traffic will emerge from the tunnel at a fairly low speed (it is a pretty long upgrade in either direction), and the speeds get slower if traffic is behind a laden dump truck or concrete ready-mix truck (most semitrailers today are too high for the BHT, so tractor-trailer combinations on this crossing are not that common - nearly all of them stay on I-95 and use the FMT).
-
This afternoon is the bid opening for the Canton Viaduct replacement (and tunnel deck resurfacing and other stuff).
It will be interesting to see who has the winning bid and what the price is.
-
This afternoon is the bid opening for the Canton Viaduct replacement (and tunnel deck resurfacing and other stuff).
It will be interesting to see who has the winning bid and what the price is.
No news yet?
-
This afternoon is the bid opening for the Canton Viaduct replacement (and tunnel deck resurfacing and other stuff).
It will be interesting to see who has the winning bid and what the price is.
No news yet?
Not a peep from MDTA, and nothing in the Baltimore Sun.
-
This afternoon is the bid opening for the Canton Viaduct replacement (and tunnel deck resurfacing and other stuff).
It will be interesting to see who has the winning bid and what the price is.
No news yet?
Not a peep from MDTA, and nothing in the Baltimore Sun.
This is really an oddball one.
All of MDTA's proposals are listed on bidx. However, this one can only be found on eMaryland/Buyspeed/Maryland M@rketplace (there seems to be varying names for it). That is usually reserved for smaller, non-transportation related projects
The proposal date was changed from 10/12/17 to 10/20/17. All of MDTA's bids are usually due on Thursdays. Friday afternoon is rare/nonexistent.
You can find everything about this project, even the plans and amendments to the original, up until 10/18/17, including that they will not change the 10/20 due date/time. After that, silence.
Even if they decided to cancel the current letting, you would see *something* on these sites.
Very unusual.
-
This afternoon is the bid opening for the Canton Viaduct replacement (and tunnel deck resurfacing and other stuff).
It will be interesting to see who has the winning bid and what the price is.
No news yet?
Not a peep from MDTA, and nothing in the Baltimore Sun.
This is really an oddball one.
All of MDTA's proposals are listed on bidx. However, this one can only be found on eMaryland/Buyspeed/Maryland M@rketplace (there seems to be varying names for it). That is usually reserved for smaller, non-transportation related projects
The proposal date was changed from 10/12/17 to 10/20/17. All of MDTA's bids are usually due on Thursdays. Friday afternoon is rare/nonexistent.
You can find everything about this project, even the plans and amendments to the original, up until 10/18/17, including that they will not change the 10/20 due date/time. After that, silence.
Even if they decided to cancel the current letting, you would see *something* on these sites.
Very unusual.
There is usually a "bid tabs" button that shows up when the bids have been opened on the Maryland Marketplace site, next to the "Exit" button.
Checking the page for the Canton Viaduct job (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=MDJ0731032898&external=true&parentUrl=bid), it's not there (at least not yet). I can think of a few reasons for this:
(1) No bids at all were submitted (probably unlikely);
(2) All submitted bids were rejected (but I think the bid prices would still be there, since I think bid rejection has to come from the MDTA Board); or
(3) They got several bids and they will post them as soon as MDTA has verified that all bidders have submitted complete bid packages (this is a pretty complex project).
-
This afternoon is the bid opening for the Canton Viaduct replacement (and tunnel deck resurfacing and other stuff).
It will be interesting to see who has the winning bid and what the price is.
No news yet?
Not a peep from MDTA, and nothing in the Baltimore Sun.
This is really an oddball one.
All of MDTA's proposals are listed on bidx. However, this one can only be found on eMaryland/Buyspeed/Maryland M@rketplace (there seems to be varying names for it). That is usually reserved for smaller, non-transportation related projects
The proposal date was changed from 10/12/17 to 10/20/17. All of MDTA's bids are usually due on Thursdays. Friday afternoon is rare/nonexistent.
You can find everything about this project, even the plans and amendments to the original, up until 10/18/17, including that they will not change the 10/20 due date/time. After that, silence.
Even if they decided to cancel the current letting, you would see *something* on these sites.
Very unusual.
There is usually a "bid tabs" button that shows up when the bids have been opened on the Maryland Marketplace site, next to the "Exit" button.
Checking the page for the Canton Viaduct job (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=MDJ0731032898&external=true&parentUrl=bid), it's not there (at least not yet). I can think of a few reasons for this:
(1) No bids at all were submitted (probably unlikely);
(2) All submitted bids were rejected (but I think the bid prices would still be there, since I think bid rejection has to come from the MDTA Board); or
(3) They got several bids and they will post them as soon as MDTA has verified that all bidders have submitted complete bid packages (this is a pretty complex project).
I would seriously doubt that there were no bids. Rejection of bids would be a separate and later decision, no reason why they would not announce the bid amounts if they had been verified. Surprising there is nothing in the newspapers about this.
-
There is usually a "bid tabs" button that shows up when the bids have been opened on the Maryland Marketplace site, next to the "Exit" button.
Checking the page for the Canton Viaduct job (https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=MDJ0731032898&external=true&parentUrl=bid), it's not there (at least not yet). I can think of a few reasons for this:
(1) No bids at all were submitted (probably unlikely);
(2) All submitted bids were rejected (but I think the bid prices would still be there, since I think bid rejection has to come from the MDTA Board); or
(3) They got several bids and they will post them as soon as MDTA has verified that all bidders have submitted complete bid packages (this is a pretty complex project).
I did an advanced search, by date, of all MD607 (Maryland Transportation Authority) bids. Either Maryland is very slow at awarding the contract, or they are hit-and-miss about posting it. Per the website, no openings since 9/7/17 have been awarded, and only 4 bids have been awarded since June, 2017. Several before that were never completed as well.
From what I can tell, there's no way to see if a project that wasn't awarded were due to reasons 1 or 2.
Your experiences may differ in Maryland, but it's very unlikely to see anything in New Jersey newspapers about project awards. If the project amount is mentioned, it's usually in another article more related about the construction beginning. Today's reporters are pretty unknowledgeable about this stuff, don't take the time to dive into DOT websites unless it's in a Press Release area (or Twitter), and unless they copy it directly from a press release, they'll have no idea how to even find it.
-
Your experiences may differ in Maryland, but it's very unlikely to see anything in New Jersey newspapers about project awards. If the project amount is mentioned, it's usually in another article more related about the construction beginning. Today's reporters are pretty unknowledgeable about this stuff, don't take the time to dive into DOT websites unless it's in a Press Release area (or Twitter), and unless they copy it directly from a press release, they'll have no idea how to even find it.
Newspapers in Maryland and Virginia do typically announce contract awards for major highway projects. Especially in the case of a project like the Canton Viaduct Replacement that will see long-term lane closures on an Interstate highway.
The agency would typically have their own press release providing the details, and the newspapers and TV stations would use that data.
-
Also, all or very nearly all projects that go out to competitive bid (or sole-source bid) must be approved by the MDTA Board once the staff has identified an apparent low bidder and that the bidder meets all of the (in this case) very complex requirements listed in the IFB.
That being the case, the name of the winning bidder and the total contract price will appear (at some point) in the meeting minutes of the Board.
If the dollar amount exceeds a certain limit, it then has to go to the Board of Public Works (governor, comptroller and state treasurer) for final approval after the MDTA Board has approved the contract.
-
Newspapers in Maryland and Virginia do typically announce contract awards for major highway projects. Especially in the case of a project like the Canton Viaduct Replacement that will see long-term lane closures on an Interstate highway.
The agency would typically have their own press release providing the details, and the newspapers and TV stations would use that data.
Because of the disruptive nature of this project (long-term two lane operation with several total shut-downs of the crossing for 24 to 48 to 72 hours), MDTA is planning an extensive and aggressive media outreach campaign, which will presumably include all of the major media players in the Baltimore and Washington media markets.
-
So the winning bidder of the Canton Viaduct (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B016'10.1%22N+76%C2%B033'25.7%22W/@39.269468,-76.5593287,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89c8038a31c715cd:0xb12e3d38582f6f20!2sCanton,+Baltimore,+MD!3b1!8m2!3d39.2821834!4d-76.5762756!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.2694683!4d-76.5571396) replacement project (and related I-895 work) is finally announced. It's Tutor Perini, same firm that built the Alaskan Way Tunnel in Seattle. Apparently they were the only firm that bid on the job.
MDTA press release: MAJOR SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROJECTS COMING TO I-695 & I-895 IN BALTIMORE (http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/News/MDTA_News_Releases/major-system-preservation-projects-coming-to-i-695-i-895-in-baltimore)
I-895 Bridge - One Lane Open Each Direction 24/7 Post- Thanksgiving 2018 - 2021
The project is scheduled for completion in 2021. Tutor Perini Corporation will be performing the work.
See the Maryland thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4671.msg2285964#msg2285964) for the other project (Curtis Creek draw span repairs) described by this press release.
-
So the winning bidder of the Canton Viaduct (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B016'10.1%22N+76%C2%B033'25.7%22W/@39.269468,-76.5593287,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89c8038a31c715cd:0xb12e3d38582f6f20!2sCanton,+Baltimore,+MD!3b1!8m2!3d39.2821834!4d-76.5762756!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.2694683!4d-76.5571396) replacement project (and related I-895 work) is finally announced. It's Tutor Perini, same firm that built the Alaskan Way Tunnel in Seattle. Apparently they were the only firm that bid on the job.
MDTA press release: MAJOR SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROJECTS COMING TO I-695 & I-895 IN BALTIMORE (http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/News/MDTA_News_Releases/major-system-preservation-projects-coming-to-i-695-i-895-in-baltimore)
I-895 Bridge - One Lane Open Each Direction 24/7 Post- Thanksgiving 2018 - 2021
The project is scheduled for completion in 2021. Tutor Perini Corporation will be performing the work.
See the Maryland thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4671.msg2285964#msg2285964) for the other project (Curtis Creek draw span repairs) described by this press release.
I was wondering about this and looked at the letting announcement yesterday.
"Today, the MDTA Board approved the $189 million I-895 Bridge Project for construction."
Wasn't it estimated at about $280 million? If so that is good news that they got a much lower bid.
Includes a rehab of the tunnel and replacing an elevated ramp --
"The MDTA will replace the I-895 bridge located north of the Harbor Tunnel. Work also includes replacing the Holabird Avenue exit ramp (Exit 10) and rehabilitating the Harbor Tunnel, including repairs to the tunnel portal, approach ramps and walls, deck, fire suppression system and tiles. The project extends for three miles, starting on the south side of the Harbor Tunnel and moves north to the Boston Street/O'Donnell Street exit ramp (Exit 11)."
Plus the I-695 Curtis Creek Drawbridge --
"Curtis Creek Drawbridge - One Lane Open Each Direction 24/7 Jan. to Nov. 2018
The $20 million project to rehabilitate the structural, mechanical and electrical components of the Curtis Creek Drawbridge begins this month, with traffic impacts to I-695 starting in January 2018. Two-way traffic will operate 24/7 on this section of I-695."
So both harbor crossings will have a 2-lane restriction.
-
So both harbor crossings will have a 2-lane restriction.
Though there's a third crossing that will have 6 or 8 lanes all the way across Baltimore City - the Fort McHenry Tunnel (I-95). The contractor is mobilized to widen the 6-lane section north of the toll plaza to 8 lanes right now.
-
So both harbor crossings will have a 2-lane restriction.
Though there's a third crossing that will have 6 or 8 lanes all the way across Baltimore City - the Fort McHenry Tunnel (I-95). The contractor is mobilized to widen the 6-lane section north of the toll plaza to 8 lanes right now.
Yes indeed there are 3 crossings, I was just pointing out that two of them are being reduced from 4 to 2 lanes on a segment that will be under construction. That has a major traffic impact on all three harbor crossings.
The I-95 6-lane section north of the toll plaza is on viaduct, it has the lane-drops for the unbuilt I-83 ramps, that would take at least 2 years to widen that to 8 lanes.
-
Yes indeed there are 3 crossings, I was just pointing out that two of them are being reduced from 4 to 2 lanes on a segment that will be under construction. That has a major traffic impact on all three harbor crossings.
I believe that the I-695 (really MD-695) project at the Curtis Creek drawspan is supposed to be completed before the I-895 Canton Viaduct project gets under way.
The I-95 6-lane section north of the toll plaza is on viaduct, it has the lane-drops for the unbuilt I-83 ramps, that would take at least 2 years to widen that to 8 lanes.
The I-95 widening was awarded quite a while ago, and the contractor (Concrete General of Gaithersburg, Maryland) has been working through most of 2017, so a lot of the work is already complete.
-
Yes indeed there are 3 crossings, I was just pointing out that two of them are being reduced from 4 to 2 lanes on a segment that will be under construction. That has a major traffic impact on all three harbor crossings.
I believe that the I-695 (really MD-695) project at the Curtis Creek drawspan is supposed to be completed before the I-895 Canton Viaduct project gets under way.
To be completed in Nov. 2018 as I cited above. So are they going to wait 11 months before closing 2 lanes on the I-895 HTT?
The I-95 6-lane section north of the toll plaza is on viaduct, it has the lane-drops for the unbuilt I-83 ramps, that would take at least 2 years to widen that to 8 lanes.
The I-95 widening was awarded quite a while ago, and the contractor (Concrete General of Gaithersburg, Maryland) has been working through most of 2017, so a lot of the work is already complete.
What exactly are they doing, just restriping the existing roadways? In the unbuilt I-83 interchange area, there is almost 2,000 feet of I-95 twin bridges with 3 lanes and 2 full shoulders on each, I just checked on Google Maps aerial view, and they don't look wide enough to restripe for 4 lanes and have even one full shoulder (presumably on the right).
http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/News/MDTA_News_Releases/i-95-improvement-project-to-add-capacity-north-of-the-tunnel
-
Yes indeed there are 3 crossings, I was just pointing out that two of them are being reduced from 4 to 2 lanes on a segment that will be under construction. That has a major traffic impact on all three harbor crossings.
I believe that the I-695 (really MD-695) project at the Curtis Creek drawspan is supposed to be completed before the I-895 Canton Viaduct project gets under way.
To be completed in Nov. 2018 as I cited above. So are they going to wait 11 months before closing 2 lanes on the I-895 HTT?
I see that the answer is YES --
"Stage-one construction on the I-895 project begins in March 2018, with lane widths reduced to 11 feet and work taking place on the shoulders and under the I-895 bridge. Major traffic impacts during stages two and three begin after Thanksgiving 2018 and are expected to last until mid-2021.
During stage two, northbound I-895 will close 24/7, and two-way traffic will operate on southbound I-895. The Holabird Avenue exit ramp will close 24/7 during stage two.
Stage three begins in early 2020, when southbound I-895 will close 24/7 and two-way traffic will operate on northbound I-895. The I-895/Holabird Avenue ramp will reopen to traffic in stage three.
In order to rehabilitate the tunnel and tunnel approach roadway surface, MDTA will close each of the two tunnel bores for 60-days at separate times."
http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/News/MDTA_News_Releases/major-system-preservation-projects-coming-to-i-695-i-895-in-baltimore
....
They had extended HTT tube closures soon after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened in 1985, for major tunnel rehabs. After all these years certainly it is time for another major rehab and modernization to tunnel systems.
Wonder what they are going to do with ventilation, replace the plenum fans, or go the jet fan route like on the Norfolk-Portsmouth tunnel rehabs?
The $189 million is a lot of money, but it covers a lot more than just the 0.9 mile Canton Viaduct.
-
Yes indeed there are 3 crossings, I was just pointing out that two of them are being reduced from 4 to 2 lanes on a segment that will be under construction. That has a major traffic impact on all three harbor crossings.
I believe that the I-695 (really MD-695) project at the Curtis Creek drawspan is supposed to be completed before the I-895 Canton Viaduct project gets under way.
To be completed in Nov. 2018 as I cited above. So are they going to wait 11 months before closing 2 lanes on the I-895 HTT?
Yes. I do not think that Tutor Perini is allowed to close anything before November 2018. I suppose there is other work that can get under way, such as shop drawings for the new Canton Viaduct structure, and for the exit from I-895 northbound to Holabird Avenue.
The I-95 6-lane section north of the toll plaza is on viaduct, it has the lane-drops for the unbuilt I-83 ramps, that would take at least 2 years to widen that to 8 lanes.
The I-95 widening was awarded quite a while ago, and the contractor (Concrete General of Gaithersburg, Maryland) has been working through most of 2017, so a lot of the work is already complete.
What exactly are they doing, just restriping the existing roadways? In the unbuilt I-83 interchange area, there is almost 2,000 feet of I-95 twin bridges with 3 lanes and 2 full shoulders on each, I just checked on Google Maps aerial view, and they don't look wide enough to restripe for 4 lanes and have even one full shoulder (presumably on the right).
http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/News/MDTA_News_Releases/i-95-improvement-project-to-add-capacity-north-of-the-tunnel
As best as I can tell, the work is mostly on the left (median) side. Does not appear to be any (permanent) re-striping going on. Interestingly, the Google car was by there recently (October 2017) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.28052,-76.55074,3a,75y,352.85h,79.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sj15eN7uEd6bzmN_D_ULcNQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dj15eN7uEd6bzmN_D_ULcNQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D147.26117%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is a good image of what Concrete General is doing.
-
What exactly are they doing, just restriping the existing roadways? In the unbuilt I-83 interchange area, there is almost 2,000 feet of I-95 twin bridges with 3 lanes and 2 full shoulders on each, I just checked on Google Maps aerial view, and they don't look wide enough to restripe for 4 lanes and have even one full shoulder (presumably on the right).
http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/News/MDTA_News_Releases/i-95-improvement-project-to-add-capacity-north-of-the-tunnel
As best as I can tell, the work is mostly on the left (median) side. Does not appear to be any (permanent) re-striping going on. Interestingly, the Google car was by there recently (October 2017) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.28052,-76.55074,3a,75y,352.85h,79.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sj15eN7uEd6bzmN_D_ULcNQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dj15eN7uEd6bzmN_D_ULcNQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D147.26117%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is a good image of what Concrete General is doing.
Looks like they are decking in between the two bridges, which looks like on aerial view could give 4 more feet of bridge deck each way, which should allow for a full 10 foot shoulder on the right as well as four 12 foot lanes and maybe a 4-foot shoulder on the left.
-
They had extended HTT tube closures soon after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened in 1985, for major tunnel rehabs. After all these years certainly it is time for another major rehab and modernization to tunnel systems.
Wonder what they are going to do with ventilation, replace the plenum fans, or go the jet fan route like on the Norfolk-Portsmouth tunnel rehabs?
The $189 million is a lot of money, but it covers a lot more than just the 0.9 mile Canton Viaduct.
Here in NJ we have the Holland Tunnel, and I know that goes a lot more than 30 years between rehabs. In fact I think it's had exactly one. In no small part the issue is that you can't establish contraflow there, so you can only shut down one lane at a time or MAYBE get an overnight closure and force everyone up to the Lincoln Tunnel. Maybe. I would think you could go at least 50 years.
-
They had extended HTT tube closures soon after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened in 1985, for major tunnel rehabs. After all these years certainly it is time for another major rehab and modernization to tunnel systems.
Wonder what they are going to do with ventilation, replace the plenum fans, or go the jet fan route like on the Norfolk-Portsmouth tunnel rehabs?
The $189 million is a lot of money, but it covers a lot more than just the 0.9 mile Canton Viaduct.
Here in NJ we have the Holland Tunnel, and I know that goes a lot more than 30 years between rehabs. In fact I think it's had exactly one. In no small part the issue is that you can't establish contraflow there, so you can only shut down one lane at a time or MAYBE get an overnight closure and force everyone up to the Lincoln Tunnel. Maybe. I would think you could go at least 50 years.
What I don't know is the degree of rehab in each HTT project, I would need to see the details. It may be that the first rehab was a light rehab. On a quick look inside the tunnel I see what looks like strip florescent lighting fixtures, I don't think that is the original but that is old technology.
-
They had extended HTT tube closures soon after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened in 1985, for major tunnel rehabs. After all these years certainly it is time for another major rehab and modernization to tunnel systems.
Wonder what they are going to do with ventilation, replace the plenum fans, or go the jet fan route like on the Norfolk-Portsmouth tunnel rehabs?
The $189 million is a lot of money, but it covers a lot more than just the 0.9 mile Canton Viaduct.
Here in NJ we have the Holland Tunnel, and I know that goes a lot more than 30 years between rehabs. In fact I think it's had exactly one. In no small part the issue is that you can't establish contraflow there, so you can only shut down one lane at a time or MAYBE get an overnight closure and force everyone up to the Lincoln Tunnel. Maybe. I would think you could go at least 50 years.
Why can't contraflow be established in the Holland Tunnel?
-
They had extended HTT tube closures soon after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened in 1985, for major tunnel rehabs. After all these years certainly it is time for another major rehab and modernization to tunnel systems.
Wonder what they are going to do with ventilation, replace the plenum fans, or go the jet fan route like on the Norfolk-Portsmouth tunnel rehabs?
The $189 million is a lot of money, but it covers a lot more than just the 0.9 mile Canton Viaduct.
Here in NJ we have the Holland Tunnel, and I know that goes a lot more than 30 years between rehabs. In fact I think it's had exactly one. In no small part the issue is that you can't establish contraflow there, so you can only shut down one lane at a time or MAYBE get an overnight closure and force everyone up to the Lincoln Tunnel. Maybe. I would think you could go at least 50 years.
Why can't contraflow be established in the Holland Tunnel?
Is that even possible given that the Holland consists of two 2-lane tubes?
ixnay
-
They had extended HTT tube closures soon after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened in 1985, for major tunnel rehabs. After all these years certainly it is time for another major rehab and modernization to tunnel systems.
Wonder what they are going to do with ventilation, replace the plenum fans, or go the jet fan route like on the Norfolk-Portsmouth tunnel rehabs?
The $189 million is a lot of money, but it covers a lot more than just the 0.9 mile Canton Viaduct.
Here in NJ we have the Holland Tunnel, and I know that goes a lot more than 30 years between rehabs. In fact I think it's had exactly one. In no small part the issue is that you can't establish contraflow there, so you can only shut down one lane at a time or MAYBE get an overnight closure and force everyone up to the Lincoln Tunnel. Maybe. I would think you could go at least 50 years.
Why can't contraflow be established in the Holland Tunnel?
I'll start by counterexample - the Lincoln Tunnel is set up that way. Thanks to the configuration of incoming roadways, you could literally go contraflow in any one of the Lincoln's three tubes, although the center tube is normally the only one that does that (and normally only one tube is out of service at any time). All the Port Authority needs to do is set up cone lines and signs.
Now, the Holland Tunnel. The toll plaza is beyond the last street on the NJ side, so there is no way to switch traffic over. If you put two-way traffic in the north tube, everyone would get to enter for free, and I can tell you right now that will never happen in a non-emergency. If you put them in the south tube, not as big a deal, but you would have to take a toll lane out of commission, and then use cones to get everyone back up to 12th Street. Now let's look at the NY side. For the north tube, you would have to have police in the road to direct traffic into the right side of Canal Street, and maybe Hudson (sharp right), because there's no traffic signal facing the (normally WB) tunnel approach. The south tube is again easier to deal with, but it would require everyone to enter the tunnel from Varick Street and stay in the right lane.
Can it be done? Anything can be done. But it won't.
-
What I don't know is the degree of rehab in each HTT project, I would need to see the details. It may be that the first rehab was a light rehab. On a quick look inside the tunnel I see what looks like strip florescent lighting fixtures, I don't think that is the original but that is old technology.
The post-1985 BHT project included a total replacement of the tunnel deck; a replacement of the tunnel lighting system; removal and replacement of the tiles on the walls; and removal of the booths for the police officers (they were replaced by video monitoring)
What MDTA has planned now for the tubes is as follows (note - from memory, not from reading the IFB as amended):
- Removal of the wearing surface (only) of the concrete tunnel decks with some sort of hydraulic demolition process, and then installation of a new surface using latex-modified concrete (MDTA likes to do this for some reason - MDOT/SHA almost never does, having a revealed preference for "complete" deck replacement). Note that a similar process was used on the westbound span of the WPL (Bay) Bridge in the early 2000's, and that did not end well, because the new surface did not adhere properly and started to crack and delaminate pretty quickly, and then a decision was made to do a total deck replacement with prefabricated sections so the bridge could be opened each morning to traffic (but on the flipside, the BHT, because of overhead clearance restrictions, does not carry as much truck traffic as the WPL). It was thought that the delamination might have been due in part to the presence of salt on the remaining "bare" bridge deck and perhaps because of truck traffic.
- Replacement of the tiles where the tiling system has failed (and there's quite a lot of that, especially in the northbound tube for some reason).
- Replacement or repair of the pipes that supply water for firefighting use.
- Replacement of the lane control signals in both tubes.
- Replacement of the lighting systems in both tubes.
I know there were some other items as well, but I think the above were the major ones.
-
Here in NJ we have the Holland Tunnel, and I know that goes a lot more than 30 years between rehabs. In fact I think it's had exactly one. In no small part the issue is that you can't establish contraflow there, so you can only shut down one lane at a time or MAYBE get an overnight closure and force everyone up to the Lincoln Tunnel. Maybe. I would think you could go at least 50 years.
The BHT tubes went from 1957 to about 1985 with very little maintenance having been done on them.
Getting back to the Holland Tunnel, perhaps this might motivate the Port Authority to switch to all-electronic toll collection?
-
What I don't know is the degree of rehab in each HTT project, I would need to see the details. It may be that the first rehab was a light rehab. On a quick look inside the tunnel I see what looks like strip florescent lighting fixtures, I don't think that is the original but that is old technology.
The post-1985 BHT project included a total replacement of the tunnel deck; a replacement of the tunnel lighting system; removal and replacement of the tiles on the walls; and removal of the booths for the police officers (they were replaced by video monitoring)
What MDTA has planned now for the tubes is as follows (note - from memory, not from reading the IFB as amended):
- Removal of the wearing surface (only) of the concrete tunnel decks with some sort of hydraulic demolition process, and then installation of a new surface using latex-modified concrete (MDTA likes to do this for some reason - MDOT/SHA almost never does, having a revealed preference for "complete" deck replacement). Note that a similar process was used on the westbound span of the WPL (Bay) Bridge in the early 2000's, and that did not end well, because the new surface did not ahere properly and started to crack and delaminate pretty quickly, and then a decision was made to do a total deck replacement with prefabricated sections so the bridge could be opened each morning to traffic (but on the flipside, the BHT, because of overhead clearance restrictions, does not carry as much truck traffic as the WPL). It was thought that the delamination might have been due in part to the presence of salt on the remaining "bare" bridge deck and perhaps because of truck traffic.
- Replacement of the tiles where the tiling system has failed (and there's quite a lot of that, especially in the northbound tube for some reason).
- Replacement or repair of the pipes that supply water for firefighting use.
- Replacement of the lane control signals in both tubes.
- Replacement of the lighting systems in both tubes.
I know there were some other items as well, but I think the above were the major ones.
Good summaries, thanks! Thirty years is a long enough time that I am OK with the above rehab schemes, which could be categorized at major rehabs. Do you know what is the plan with regard to ventilation systems?
....
The original Downtown Tunnel in Norfolk was opened in 1952. When the second tube opened in 1987 the original tube was closed for almost a year for a major rehab, I don't have the exact details but it included new roadway, new lighting, and major upgrades to electrical, mechanical, drainage, fire, ventilation and surveillance systems
The 2013-14 rehab to both tubes --
Rehabilitation consists of structural, fire, life and safety improvements including:
§ Tunnel fireproofing for structural protection
§ A new jet fan ventilation system [plus removal of roadway tunnel ceiling which was also the floor of the plenum ventilation exhaust tunnel]
§ LED tunnel lighting which provides brighter lighting and uses less energy [LED is so much brighter that the new Midtown Tunnel tube doesn't need tiles, the walls are the fireproofing panels alone]
§ Tile and concrete repair
§ Exit and safety signage
https://www.driveert.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ERT_factsheets_WestDowntownTunnel_Current.pdf
Well worth the money spent, IMO, bring the tunnels into 21st century standards.
The original Midtown Tunnel tube was opened in 1962 and got the same rehab treatment, and its first, completed in 2017. I was down there a couple days ago and rode thru it for the first time since the rehab was completed and it looks very fine.
-
What I don't know is the degree of rehab in each HTT project, I would need to see the details. It may be that the first rehab was a light rehab. On a quick look inside the tunnel I see what looks like strip florescent lighting fixtures, I don't think that is the original but that is old technology.
The post-1985 BHT project included a total replacement of the tunnel deck; a replacement of the tunnel lighting system; removal and replacement of the tiles on the walls; and removal of the booths for the police officers (they were replaced by video monitoring)
What MDTA has planned now for the tubes is as follows (note - from memory, not from reading the IFB as amended):
- Removal of the wearing surface (only) of the concrete tunnel decks with some sort of hydraulic demolition process, and then installation of a new surface using latex-modified concrete (MDTA likes to do this for some reason - MDOT/SHA almost never does, having a revealed preference for "complete" deck replacement). Note that a similar process was used on the westbound span of the WPL (Bay) Bridge in the early 2000's, and that did not end well, because the new surface did not ahere properly and started to crack and delaminate pretty quickly, and then a decision was made to do a total deck replacement with prefabricated sections so the bridge could be opened each morning to traffic (but on the flipside, the BHT, because of overhead clearance restrictions, does not carry as much truck traffic as the WPL). It was thought that the delamination might have been due in part to the presence of salt on the remaining "bare" bridge deck and perhaps because of truck traffic.
- Replacement of the tiles where the tiling system has failed (and there's quite a lot of that, especially in the northbound tube for some reason).
- Replacement or repair of the pipes that supply water for firefighting use.
- Replacement of the lane control signals in both tubes.
- Replacement of the lighting systems in both tubes.
I know there were some other items as well, but I think the above were the major ones.
Good summaries, thanks! Thirty years is a long enough time that I am OK with the above rehab schemes, which could be categorized at major rehabs.
I guess I would classify them as repair and resurfacing, not a major rehab. Major rehab in a tunnel should not happen every 30 years. Retiling, resurfacing, upgrade lighting, sure.
-
Good summaries, thanks! Thirty years is a long enough time that I am OK with the above rehab schemes, which could be categorized at major rehabs.
I guess I would classify them as repair and resurfacing, not a major rehab. Major rehab in a tunnel should not happen every 30 years. Retiling, resurfacing, upgrade lighting, sure.
What would you consider major rehab tasks ... complete replacement of roadway slab? Complete replacement of ventilation fans? Complete replacement of electrical conduits and wiring? Complete replacement of fire mains and hydrants?
-
Good summaries, thanks! Thirty years is a long enough time that I am OK with the above rehab schemes, which could be categorized at major rehabs.
I guess I would classify them as repair and resurfacing, not a major rehab. Major rehab in a tunnel should not happen every 30 years. Retiling, resurfacing, upgrade lighting, sure.
What would you consider major rehab tasks ... complete replacement of roadway slab? Complete replacement of ventilation fans? Complete replacement of electrical conduits and wiring? Complete replacement of fire mains and hydrants?
Non-surface replacement, and/or structural replacement (meaning they have to go further deep into the roadbed or walls to get to what they need to work on).
Note: All of this could be done with just overnight/weekend shutdowns, but it would take the project a lot longer to complete.
Whenever transportation agencies have these types of projects, they look to see if they should shut down the entire system completely, or shut down just one side leaving the other side open as is, or with 2 way traffic, or with 1 way traffic inbound in the morning/outbound in the afternoon. They could also build a temporary structure (not likely with a tunnel). And they can just do construction outside of rush-hour periods, leaving the roadway fully open for rush hour. There's benefits and disadvantages to every option, and no one option will please everyone. Depending on the situation, there's usually other options as well.
In this case, MD decided to go with 2-way traffic in one tunnel...at least for now. Agencies know that some people will detour themselves to other routes, whether they be signed or unsigned detour routes. Motorists tend to sort themselves out over time.
Of course, if there's a few high-profile or fatal accidents in the tunnel during rush hours, jamming up the area completely, MD could change their minds and go with another option.
-
Of course, if there's a few high-profile or fatal accidents in the tunnel during rush hours, jamming up the area completely, MD could change their minds and go with another option.
MDTA routinely runs two-way traffic on two of its crossings - I-895 and the WPL (Bay) bridge.
On I-895, almost only in the overnights to service the lighting, and during the warm months, to wash the tunnel walls. There have been more than a few crashes while running the BHT with all traffic in one tube. For the extended two-way traffic operation, not clear to me if they are going to place a concrete barrier in the middle (and I have no idea if the tunnel deck is strong enough to support the added weight of a "portable" Jersey barrier), effectively creating a PennDOT-style cattle chute across the entire tunnel.
On the WPL (U.S. 50 and U.S. 301) they will run all traffic on one span in the overnights and sometimes on weekdays during the mid-day.
-
Of course, if there's a few high-profile or fatal accidents in the tunnel during rush hours, jamming up the area completely, MD could change their minds and go with another option.
MDTA routinely runs two-way traffic on two of its crossings - I-895 and the WPL (Bay) bridge.
On I-895, almost only in the overnights to service the lighting, and during the warm months, to wash the tunnel walls. There have been more than a few crashes while running the BHT with all traffic in one tube. For the extended two-way traffic operation, not clear to me if they are going to place a concrete barrier in the middle (and I have no idea if the tunnel deck is strong enough to support the added weight of a "portable" Jersey barrier), effectively creating a PennDOT-style cattle chute across the entire tunnel.
On the WPL (U.S. 50 and U.S. 301) they will run all traffic on one span in the overnights and sometimes on weekdays during the mid-day.
In the evening/overnight hours, traffic tends to be a bit calmer...and when accidents occur they affect fewer people in the resulting backups. A crash in contraflow mode during rush hours when people are already rushing and aggravated by traffic can lead to the entire region being affected by people trying to avoid the area and detour around it.
A jersey barrier wall would certainly help, if there's enough room for it.
-
PennDOT closed one tunnel completely when it rehabilitated the Fort Pitt Bridge & Tunnels in Pittsburgh. They kept the detour for outbound traffic during both phases, because it ran better than in reverse. When doing the inbound tunnel, they created crossovers on both sides, including on 376 in the "bathtub" area and all the exits on the other side of the bridge. Not sure if it makes sense to detour one direction (maybe northbound since there are no exits between the I-95 south junction and the tunnel in that direction).
-
PennDOT closed one tunnel completely when it rehabilitated the Fort Pitt Bridge & Tunnels in Pittsburgh. They kept the detour for outbound traffic during both phases, because it ran better than in reverse. When doing the inbound tunnel, they created crossovers on both sides, including on 376 in the "bathtub" area and all the exits on the other side of the bridge. Not sure if it makes sense to detour one direction (maybe northbound since there are no exits between the I-95 south junction and the tunnel in that direction).
VDOT's rehabs of the Downtown and Midtown tunnels likewise closed one tunnel completely and they did not run two-way traffic in the other. The recent rehabs involved weekend closures.
The issue with using a temporary concrete median barrier is that it is 24 inches wide, so that takes 2 feet away from the usable roadway. Also there is no flexibility for handling a disabled vehicle, no way to get around it, and the only way a wrecker can get to it is by backing up for a very long distance.
-
PennDOT closed one tunnel completely when it rehabilitated the Fort Pitt Bridge & Tunnels in Pittsburgh. They kept the detour for outbound traffic during both phases, because it ran better than in reverse. When doing the inbound tunnel, they created crossovers on both sides, including on 376 in the "bathtub" area and all the exits on the other side of the bridge. Not sure if it makes sense to detour one direction (maybe northbound since there are no exits between the I-95 south junction and the tunnel in that direction).
VDOT's rehabs of the Downtown and Midtown tunnels likewise closed one tunnel completely and they did not run two-way traffic in the other. The recent rehabs involved weekend closures.
The issue with using a temporary concrete median barrier is that it is 24 inches wide, so that takes 2 feet away from the usable roadway. Also there is no flexibility for handling a disabled vehicle, no way to get around it, and the only way a wrecker can get to it is by backing up for a very long distance.
That's why the Lincoln Tunnel uses pylons to separate traffic, even on the NJ 495 approach during bus lane operation. Since that was I-495 with pylons, I-895 can be done with pylons as well.
Re: major rehab (upthread) - yes, anything that is replacing entire systems or major components of the overall tunnel system, as opposed to spot upgrades or resurfacing.
-
VDOT's rehabs of the Downtown and Midtown tunnels likewise closed one tunnel completely and they did not run two-way traffic in the other. The recent rehabs involved weekend closures.
The issue with using a temporary concrete median barrier is that it is 24 inches wide, so that takes 2 feet away from the usable roadway. Also there is no flexibility for handling a disabled vehicle, no way to get around it, and the only way a wrecker can get to it is by backing up for a very long distance.
That's why the Lincoln Tunnel uses pylons to separate traffic, even on the NJ 495 approach during bus lane operation. Since that was I-495 with pylons, I-895 can be done with pylons as well.
It was suggested that a hard barrier be used to separate traffic, that prompted my reply above.
Pylons (bollards) do provide visual separation but would not physically prevent a vehicle from entering the opposing lane.
Re: major rehab (upthread) - yes, anything that is replacing entire systems or major components of the overall tunnel system, as opposed to spot upgrades or resurfacing.
Such as replacing the plenum ventilation system with jet fans (axial flow fans)? Which in the case of ERT also involved the removal of the ceiling of the roadway tunnel which was also the floor of the exhaust tunnel.
-
VDOT's rehabs of the Downtown and Midtown tunnels likewise closed one tunnel completely and they did not run two-way traffic in the other. The recent rehabs involved weekend closures.
The issue with using a temporary concrete median barrier is that it is 24 inches wide, so that takes 2 feet away from the usable roadway. Also there is no flexibility for handling a disabled vehicle, no way to get around it, and the only way a wrecker can get to it is by backing up for a very long distance.
That's why the Lincoln Tunnel uses pylons to separate traffic, even on the NJ 495 approach during bus lane operation. Since that was I-495 with pylons, I-895 can be done with pylons as well.
It was suggested that a hard barrier be used to separate traffic, that prompted my reply above.
Pylons (bollards) do provide visual separation but would not physically prevent a vehicle from entering the opposing lane.
Re: major rehab (upthread) - yes, anything that is replacing entire systems or major components of the overall tunnel system, as opposed to spot upgrades or resurfacing.
Such as replacing the plenum ventilation system with jet fans (axial flow fans)? Which in the case of ERT also involved the removal of the ceiling of the roadway tunnel which was also the floor of the exhaust tunnel.
Well again, my distinction was work that shouldn't need to be performed every 30 years. A system upgrade may be disruptive, but as long as it lasts more than 30 years I'm okay with doing it. (It may have been overlooked the last time.)
-
Pylons (bollards) do provide visual separation but would not physically prevent a vehicle from entering the opposing lane.
Using the I-495 example, it's extremely rare to hear of another vehicle crossing thru the pylons, even though when traffic is moving, it's well above the speed limit with about a 100% tailgating rate. The visual effect seems to be substantial in keeping traffic in their proper lane. The most common accident is usually a bus bumping into another bus in the XBL. Considering how close they run behind each other, it's probably amazing it doesn't happen more often.
-
Re: major rehab (upthread) - yes, anything that is replacing entire systems or major components of the overall tunnel system, as opposed to spot upgrades or resurfacing.
Such as replacing the plenum ventilation system with jet fans (axial flow fans)? Which in the case of ERT also involved the removal of the ceiling of the roadway tunnel which was also the floor of the exhaust tunnel.
Well again, my distinction was work that shouldn't need to be performed every 30 years. A system upgrade may be disruptive, but as long as it lasts more than 30 years I'm okay with doing it. (It may have been overlooked the last time.)
They didn't have jet fans back then, not sure when the first was installed, but part of what made them feasible was vast reductions in motor vehicle pollutants enabled by advancing technology.
-
Pylons (bollards) do provide visual separation but would not physically prevent a vehicle from entering the opposing lane.
Using the I-495 example, it's extremely rare to hear of another vehicle crossing thru the pylons, even though when traffic is moving, it's well above the speed limit with about a 100% tailgating rate. The visual effect seems to be substantial in keeping traffic in their proper lane. The most common accident is usually a bus bumping into another bus in the XBL. Considering how close they run behind each other, it's probably amazing it doesn't happen more often.
That is true and if there is an emergency they can be driven through without damaging the vehicles.
-
VDOT's rehabs of the Downtown and Midtown tunnels likewise closed one tunnel completely and they did not run two-way traffic in the other.
As I understand it, the Midtown Tunnel rehab was done by closing 1 lane and not closing the tunnel completely.
-
VDOT's rehabs of the Downtown and Midtown tunnels likewise closed one tunnel completely and they did not run two-way traffic in the other.
As I understand it, the Midtown Tunnel rehab was done by closing 1 lane and not closing the tunnel completely.
Removing the tunnel ceiling in segments and installing jet fans? That is a major job and even with the tube closed to traffic there is limited room to work. And then it would have been only on weekends.
-
They didn't have jet fans back then, not sure when the first was installed, but part of what made them feasible was vast reductions in motor vehicle pollutants enabled by advancing technology.
I think the first "jet" fan I saw in the U.S. was on the PTC's "new" Lehigh Tunnel (the tube that normally carries southbound traffic (though I think PTC can run two-way traffic in most or all of its tunnels if needed, as the crossover ramps are there).
Getting back to the BHT, I do not think MDTA is going away from its "traditional" approach to tunnel ventilation using plenums and fan buildings.
Anyone looked at the plans for the CBBTD's new Thimble Shoal Tunnel?
-
Press release: Tutor Perini Announces Low Bid for the $189 Million Canton Viaduct Replacement Project (http://investors.tutorperini.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2017/Tutor-Perini-Announces-Low-Bid-for-the-189-Million-Canton-Viaduct-Replacement-Project/default.aspx)
Tutor Perini Corporation (NYSE: TPC), a leading civil, building and specialty construction company, today announced that the Company has been identified by the Maryland Transportation Authority as the low bidder for the Replacement of the Canton Viaduct I-895 Over I-95 Ramps, Railroads and City Streets and Rehabilitation of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and Tunnel Approaches. The anticipated contract value is approximately $189.4 million, and contract award is expected later in the fourth quarter of 2017.
The project scope of work includes the removal and replacement of an approximately 3,200-foot-long bridge structure on the north side of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, as well as tunnel rehabilitation. Work on the project is expected to commence in March 2018 with substantial completion anticipated by June 2021.
-
They didn't have jet fans back then, not sure when the first was installed, but part of what made them feasible was vast reductions in motor vehicle pollutants enabled by advancing technology.
I think the first "jet" fan I saw in the U.S. was on the PTC's "new" Lehigh Tunnel (the tube that normally carries southbound traffic (though I think PTC can run two-way traffic in most or all of its tunnels if needed, as the crossover ramps are there).
Getting back to the BHT, I do not think MDTA is going away from its "traditional" approach to tunnel ventilation using plenums and fan buildings.
Anyone looked at the plans for the CBBTD's new Thimble Shoal Tunnel?
Hampton Roads area tunnels all followed the "traditional" approach to tunnel ventilation, until the ERT project where all 4 tubes have jet fans. I'm not sure whether the various costs and benefits, on the balance, are substantially different or whether they are close.
I don't see detailed CBBT plans on their website, but they do have a cross-section here --
http://www.cbbt.com/project-description/
The finished product will look more modern compared to its ’60s-era companions. It will be similar to the new Midtown Tunnel, completed last year, with bright LED lights, hanging electronic signs, jet fans and a separate fire exit corridor.
-
The MDTA project page for the Patapsco Flats bridge redecking doesn’t have any clear timeline information posted. When is that project expected to be done?
-
The MDTA project page for the Patapsco Flats bridge redecking doesn’t have any clear timeline information posted. When is that project expected to be done?
Crossed Patapsco Flats last week. Looked to me like the contractor (McLean) was pretty close to having the northbound side of the bridge replaced, which means that there will likely be a traffic shift this spring.
To your question, I do not know when this will be done. Does it really matter? IMO, it will overlap with the Canton Viaduct replacement and repair work in the tubes, which is where the real traffic impact will be.
-
It's about to get real on I-895.
MDTA press release: **AVOID I-895**
MAJOR ROADWORK
COMING TO I-895 IN BALTIMORE
Use I-695/Key Bridge or I-95/Fort McHenry Tunnel as Alternate Routes (http://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-traffic-advisories/avoid-i-895-major-roadwork-coming-i-895-baltimore)
On Nov. 27, northbound I-895 will close completely for one year from the north side of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel to the Boston/O’Donnell Street exit ramp (Exit 11).
Two-way traffic – one lane in each direction – will operate on southbound I-895.
The I-895/Holabird Avenue exit ramp (Exit 10) will close completely during this time.
Additionally, the northbound bore of the Harbor Tunnel will close 24/7 for 60 days in spring 2019 with two-way traffic operating in the southbound bore.
Northbound I-895 and the Holabird Avenue exit ramp will reopen to traffic in spring 2020.
“This I-895 Bridge is the MDTA’s only remaining structurally deficient bridge,” said MDTA Executive Director Kevin C. Reigrut. “We ask our customers to be patient as we deliver this long-overdue project and remind motorists to drive safely through work zones.”
-
Major work to the tunnel as well. Not just the bridge in the $189 million cost.
"The MDTA’s $189 million I-895 Bridge Project will replace the I-895 bridge located north of the Harbor Tunnel. Work includes replacing the Holabird Avenue exit ramp and rehabilitating the Harbor Tunnel, including repairs to the tunnel portal, approach ramps and walls, deck and tiles."
-
It's about to get real on I-895.
MDTA press release: **AVOID I-895**
MAJOR ROADWORK
COMING TO I-895 IN BALTIMORE
Use I-695/Key Bridge or I-95/Fort McHenry Tunnel as Alternate Routes (http://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-traffic-advisories/avoid-i-895-major-roadwork-coming-i-895-baltimore)
On Nov. 27, northbound I-895 will close completely for one year from the north side of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel to the Boston/O’Donnell Street exit ramp (Exit 11).
Two-way traffic – one lane in each direction – will operate on southbound I-895.
The I-895/Holabird Avenue exit ramp (Exit 10) will close completely during this time.
Additionally, the northbound bore of the Harbor Tunnel will close 24/7 for 60 days in spring 2019 with two-way traffic operating in the southbound bore.
Northbound I-895 and the Holabird Avenue exit ramp will reopen to traffic in spring 2020.
“This I-895 Bridge is the MDTA’s only remaining structurally deficient bridge,” said MDTA Executive Director Kevin C. Reigrut. “We ask our customers to be patient as we deliver this long-overdue project and remind motorists to drive safely through work zones.”
Strange thing is they don't advertise that speed cameras will be used (the signs are up but covered). Come to think of it, they have been lazy announcing cameras being introduced to other work zones via press releases lately (they just pop up on the program's page).
-
Yeah, once you start detouring everyone, people will quickly discover that I-695 north of the city is free, even with more traffic. MdTA doesn't want that.
Free or not, it's going to add more time to my next trip to NYC. For the past 4 trips, I've been taking the standard DC Detour along VA 207, US 301, MD 3, I-97, and the I-895 Spurs (what the hell is up with those anyway?) before getting onto the Harbor Tunnel Thruway. It appears that the next time I do that I'll have to get off at I-695.
I'll probably take the Francis Scott Key Bridge, because I don't want to go their other way and have to look at the stupid truncating of I-70 and I-83 as I'm driving by there. It's bad enough I'd have to look at it from I-95.
-
Strange thing is they don't advertise that speed cameras will be used (the signs are up but covered). Come to think of it, they have been lazy announcing cameras being introduced to other work zones via press releases lately (they just pop up on the program's page).
But Maryland is good about announcing speed cameras in work zones, with plenty of signage ahead of construction zones with photo radar speed limit enforcement.
-
Major work to the tunnel as well. Not just the bridge in the $189 million cost.
The MDTA's contractor is going to hydro-demolish an inch or two or more (do not recall exactly how much) of the tunnel deck surfaces and pour new latex-modifed concrete in its place. This is something that MDTA likes to do on the roads and bridges that it maintains (MDOT/SHA does not normally use this approach).
-
Strange thing is they don't advertise that speed cameras will be used (the signs are up but covered). Come to think of it, they have been lazy announcing cameras being introduced to other work zones via press releases lately (they just pop up on the program's page).
But Maryland is good about announcing speed cameras in work zones, with plenty of signage ahead of construction zones with photo radar speed limit enforcement.
Yes, but think the law says they have to announce and/or post online.
-
Yeah, once you start detouring everyone, people will quickly discover that I-695 north of the city is free, even with more traffic. MdTA doesn't want that.
Free or not, it's going to add more time to my next trip to NYC. For the past 4 trips, I've been taking the standard DC Detour along VA 207, US 301, MD 3, I-97, and the I-895 Spurs (what the hell is up with those anyway?) before getting onto the Harbor Tunnel Thruway. It appears that the next time I do that I'll have to get off at I-695.
I'll probably take the Francis Scott Key Bridge, because I don't want to go their other way and have to look at the stupid truncating of I-70 and I-83 as I'm driving by there. It's bad enough I'd have to look at it from I-95.
Have you considered going over the Bay Bridge and up the Eastern Shore instead?
-
Have you considered going over the Bay Bridge and up the Eastern Shore instead?
Just saw on another forum that the DE US-301 tollroad will open next month. That means no more 2-lane bottleneck.
-
Yeah, once you start detouring everyone, people will quickly discover that I-695 north of the city is free, even with more traffic. MdTA doesn't want that.
Free or not, it's going to add more time to my next trip to NYC. For the past 4 trips, I've been taking the standard DC Detour along VA 207, US 301, MD 3, I-97, and the I-895 Spurs (what the hell is up with those anyway?) before getting onto the Harbor Tunnel Thruway. It appears that the next time I do that I'll have to get off at I-695.
I'll probably take the Francis Scott Key Bridge, because I don't want to go their other way and have to look at the stupid truncating of I-70 and I-83 as I'm driving by there. It's bad enough I'd have to look at it from I-95.
Have you considered going over the Bay Bridge and up the Eastern Shore instead?
I've done that. It's an even longer trip.
-
I've done both I-95 straight, US-50/MD-3/I-97/I-895, and US-50/301 on my return trips from NC (all diverging from the Capital Beltway). All are about the same assuming no accidents or slowdowns. US-301 on the eastern shore seems like it goes on forever due to the 55mph speed limit and farms, but its hasn't been any slower time-wise. Its also a tad more relaxing to drive as opposed to the JFK Highway rat race.
-
I've done both I-95 straight, US-50/MD-3/I-97/I-895, and US-50/301 on my return trips from NC (all diverging from the Capital Beltway). All are about the same assuming no accidents or slowdowns. US-301 on the eastern shore seems like it goes on forever due to the 55mph speed limit and farms, but its hasn't been any slower time-wise. Its also a tad more relaxing to drive as opposed to the JFK Highway rat race.
The DE US-301 tollroad will open next month, and that should shave up to 10 minutes off of the trip during peak hours.
-
IIRC, this will be the first major project for the tunnel and its approaches since shortly after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened in 1985.
-
IIRC, this will be the first major project for the tunnel and its approaches since shortly after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened in 1985.
Yes, not long after the FMT (I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel) opened to traffic, MDTA closed one tube of the BHT (I-895 Baltimore Harbor Tunnel) for a significant amount of heavy maintenance and reconstruction work, including a total replacement of the tunnel deck (so the current deck dates to the period 1985 to about 1988) and replacement of the tiles and the lighting system.
All BHT traffic had to drive on the two lanes of the other tube during this project, but because the capacity of the FMT had been added, there was little delay.
-
Have you considered going over the Bay Bridge and up the Eastern Shore instead?
Just saw on another forum that the DE US-301 tollroad will open next month. That means no more 2-lane bottleneck.
Got a link to that forum and that thread?
ixnay
-
Have you considered going over the Bay Bridge and up the Eastern Shore instead?
Just saw on another forum that the DE US-301 tollroad will open next month. That means no more 2-lane bottleneck.
Got a link to that forum and that thread?
ixnay
It was on Facebook, I think the Southeast Roads forum.
Press Release -- October 24, 2018
TRAFFIC ALERT - Traffic Switch on US 301 Northbound for Maryland Motorists Middletown (New Castle County) --
https://www.deldot.gov/About/news/index.shtml?dc=release&id=7370
"… the entire mainline of US 301 is open in late December 2018, pending weather."
U.S. Route 301 Construction
https://www.deldot.gov/information/projects/us301/
-
Baltimore Sun: Construction on I-895 in Baltimore to cause major traffic problems for the next three years (https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-895-tunnel-bridge-delays-20181108-story.html).
The commutes of tens of thousands of people will be disrupted for the next few years as Maryland replaces the Interstate 895 bridge north of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel.
The Maryland Transportation Authority plans to limit that part of the expressway to one lane in each direction starting later this month for the $189 million project to replace the 60-year-old bridge.
The northbound lanes of I-895 will close from the tunnel to O’Donnell Street on Nov. 27 — the Tuesday after Thanksgiving — and the two southbound lanes will be converted to two-way traffic through spring 2020. Once the northbound span has been rebuilt, it will carry two-way traffic through spring 2021 while the southbound span is replaced.
-
The MDTA has rented every single large billboard along I-95 and I-895 to advertise the upcoming construction project. They have extensive signage alongside the carriageway that also advertises the project and the expected disruption to traffic.
-
The MDTA has rented every single large billboard along I-95 and I-895 to advertise the upcoming construction project. They have extensive signage alongside the carriageway that also advertises the project and the expected disruption to traffic.
In years past, a project like this would be considered a "Baltimore" project and not get much attention down I-95 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
Not now. All-news WTOP radio in Washington has been mentioning it, and ran an article on their Web site earlier this month: Major highway closure through Baltimore set for next 2 years (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/11/major-highway-closure-through-baltimore-set-for-next-two-years/).
-
Strange thing is they don't advertise that speed cameras will be used (the signs are up but covered). Come to think of it, they have been lazy announcing cameras being introduced to other work zones via press releases lately (they just pop up on the program's page).
It appears that (at least for now) there will only be speed camera enforcement on the southbound side, south of O'Donnell Street, near the north landing of the Canton Viaduct. Saw no evidence that there is northbound speed enforcement planned with automated equipment.
-
The MDTA has rented every single large billboard along I-95 and I-895 to advertise the upcoming construction project. They have extensive signage alongside the carriageway that also advertises the project and the expected disruption to traffic.
In years past, a project like this would be considered a "Baltimore" project and not get much attention down I-95 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
Not now. All-news WTOP radio in Washington has been mentioning it, and ran an article on their Web site earlier this month: Major highway closure through Baltimore set for next 2 years (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/11/major-highway-closure-through-baltimore-set-for-next-two-years/).
Are there a significant number of people living in DC and commuting to Baltimore these days? There were quite a few people who lived in Baltimore and commuted to DC when I lived in DC (I considered doing it on many occasions).
-
Are there a significant number of people living in DC and commuting to Baltimore these days? There were quite a few people who lived in Baltimore and commuted to DC when I lived in DC (I considered doing it on many occasions).
Probably not as far north as the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel. There's plenty of commuter traffic from the D.C. area to Fort Meade in Anne Arundel County and its many Department of Defense agencies (I believe that is the largest employment center in the state, given that Montgomery County voters keep electing people that want to discourage employment from locating in the county).
-
Ah yes, a friend commutes from DC to Ft. Meade.
-
I'm surprised that they do not plan on restricting traffic from the tunnel from reaching I-95 and US 1 south of the tunnel to limit the traffic. It seems to me that I-97 and MD-10 traffic really needs access to I-895 to avoid a very long detour, but that I-95 and US 1 traffic has ready access to the Ft McHenry Tunnel and do not need to add to the mess at the Harbor Tunnel.
IMO, one lane in the tunnel is a mess, but it won't be so bad if it is only serving the travelers coming from the southeast and not the southwest.
-
I'm surprised that they do not plan on restricting traffic from the tunnel from reaching I-95 and US 1 south of the tunnel to limit the traffic. It seems to me that I-97 and MD-10 traffic really needs access to I-895 to avoid a very long detour, but that I-95 and US 1 traffic has ready access to the Ft McHenry Tunnel and do not need to add to the mess at the Harbor Tunnel.
IMO, one lane in the tunnel is a mess, but it won't be so bad if it is only serving the travelers coming from the southeast and not the southwest.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the MDTA eventually does close the I-895 mainline west of Exit 4. The ongoing redecking of the Patapsco Flats bridge mean that traffic is already restricted to one lane west of the I-895 Spur, which would make it less difficult to close the mainline if necessary.
-
^ Also means you already have less traffic using 895 from 95 South...
-
I’ve been thinking about that hilariously non-compliant BGS for Exit 10 on the Canton Viaduct. Is it likely to be recycled or does the MDTA retain examples of old signage like MDOT SHA?
-
I’ve been thinking about that hilariously non-compliant BGS for Exit 10 on the Canton Viaduct. Is it likely to be recycled or does the MDTA retain examples of old signage like MDOT SHA?
That sign dates to the 1980's, but I believe it was an exact replacement of a sign that probably dates back to the opening of the road in 1957, when all of the signage on the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway looked like that.
I don't know if MDTA keeps any old and historic signs around. I would love to see one of the big red signs (made from extruded aluminum or steel strips, long before SHA adopted that style of sign) that detailed the tunnel restrictions and was found at every entrance ramp to I-895.
-
The kerning on the temporary signage erected for the Canton Viaduct reconstruction is hilariously awful. I’ve never seen such horrible kerning before for any temporary sign erected by the MDTA. What gives?
-
The kerning on the temporary signage erected for the Canton Viaduct reconstruction is hilariously awful. I’ve never seen such horrible kerning before for any temporary sign erected by the MDTA. What gives?
What's "kerning"?
ixnay
-
In short: spacing between proportional font letters, with adjustment being made for the actual letters involved so it looks “normal”-such as “AV”.
-
I drove thru the temporary work zone going south on Saturday morning. The current setup isn't exactly awful (that side of the bridge at least has a shoulder), but it'll get annoying once the tunnel goes 2-way. Overall the HBT was pretty dead compared to I-95. Guess the signs telling traffic to go elsewhere are actually working.
-
I drove thru the temporary work zone going south on Saturday morning. The current setup isn't exactly awful (that side of the bridge at least has a shoulder), but it'll get annoying once the tunnel goes 2-way. Overall the HBT was pretty dead compared to I-95. Guess the signs telling traffic to go elsewhere are actually working.
Not all the time. Saw signs north of Baltimore on Friday that said the travel time from White Marsh to the Harbor Tunnel was 33 minutes (12 miles).
-
I'd like to nominate the idiot with Wisconsin? (didn't get that good of a look) plates for the 2019 Darwin Awards.........who decided that despite the right lane of the northbound Harbor Tunnel clearly being marked as closed, decided to drive down it anyway and got a surprise on the other end in the form of a jersey wall. Not a single patrol car in sight to pull that idiot over either (despite the HRT's reputation for being heavily patrolled)