US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)

[The Ghostbuster]

When this corridor study eventually proceeds to construction, will the reconstructed US 50/301 roadway and bridges be up to Interstate Standards?

[epzik8]

Interesting to see they're planning to replace the existing bridges entirely. I had previously understood it as retaining the existing bridges and constructing a third.

I believe this was the original plan, but they found replacing the two existing spans more feasible I guess.

[jeffandnicole]

Interesting to see they're planning to replace the existing bridges entirely. I had previously understood it as retaining the existing bridges and constructing a third.

I believe this was the original plan, but they found replacing the two existing spans more feasible I guess.

Very likely, and that's why they go into further analysis.  The first review phases may have suggested a 3rd bridge, but once you start looking into future repair costs, traffic analysis, and even manpower of dealing with a contraflow roadway, the costs start to sway another way.  It's possible the Key Bridge collapse played a role in the decision as well.  And are we going to end up with another cable-stayed bridge?

I would also hedge on a new bridge being built north of the existing bridges first.  However, then I start looking at the direction of the bridge.  Does anyone know why the current bridges have the curve on the western end? Could a bridge be built straight across the bay on a NW-SE angle?

[Ted$8roadFan]

Potential new replacements for the Bay Bridge:

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/13/state-considers-replacing-bay-bridge-with-new-wider-spans-along-path-of-current-crossing/

[hwyfan]

Interesting to see they're planning to replace the existing bridges entirely. I had previously understood it as retaining the existing bridges and constructing a third.

I believe this was the original plan, but they found replacing the two existing spans more feasible I guess.

Very likely, and that's why they go into further analysis.  The first review phases may have suggested a 3rd bridge, but once you start looking into future repair costs, traffic analysis, and even manpower of dealing with a contraflow roadway, the costs start to sway another way.  It's possible the Key Bridge collapse played a role in the decision as well.  And are we going to end up with another cable-stayed bridge?

I would also hedge on a new bridge being built north of the existing bridges first.  However, then I start looking at the direction of the bridge.  Does anyone know why the current bridges have the curve on the western end? Could a bridge be built straight across the bay on a NW-SE angle?

Another reason the MdTA would like to construct new bridges here is to provide greater vertical and horizontal clearance over the shipping channel leading into Baltimore.     

[BrianP]

I would also hedge on a new bridge being built north of the existing bridges first.  However, then I start looking at the direction of the bridge.  Does anyone know why the current bridges have the curve on the western end? Could a bridge be built straight across the bay on a NW-SE angle?

As I believe was stated in the Key bridge discussion, the main span has to cross the channel at a 90 degree angle.  That's why most of the Bay bridge span is close to E/W in orientation.  As the channel looks like it's close to N/S there.  The bridge bends to the north at the west end because that's where they needed the bridge to land.  Going west the highway needs to go towards the north to avoid water, mainly Whitehall Creek.  If you didn't have that bend to the north on the bridge, you would have a nasty curve to the north after the bridge landing.

As for where to build an additional span, the north side is problematic since you are going to impact boats coming and going to the marina at Sandy Point State Park on the west end of the bridge. You would have to move/remove that jetty and remove some of the south end of the beach there to maintain access to the marina. And the south side is worse since there's no place to land south of the existing spans on the eastern end. 

So the solution may be to build it between the existing bridges.  It will be a tight fit on the west end.  You may have to construct half of the western landing and open two lanes with minimal or no shoulders at first on the new bridge.  Then remove the old two lane bridge landing before you can finish the western landing of the new bridge.

Then when it comes time to build the second new span there should be enough space to build it to the south of the new bridge since it would basically replace the 2 lane bridge with the western landing moving a bit further south.  But that should be ok since that appears to be MDTA property.

[sprjus4]

So the solution may be to build it between the existing bridges.  It will be a tight fit on the west end.  You may have to construct half of the western landing and open two lanes with minimal or no shoulders at first on the new bridge.  Then remove the old two lane bridge landing before you can finish the western landing of the new bridge.

If I recall, they mentioned in the slides that building between the existing bridges was not feasible.

[jeffandnicole]

As for where to build an additional span, the north side is problematic since you are going to impact boats coming and going to the marina at Sandy Point State Park on the west end of the bridge. You would have to move/remove that jetty and remove some of the south end of the beach there to maintain access to the marina. And the south side is worse since there's no place to land south of the existing spans on the eastern end.

In the linked summary in the article, a preliminary sketch shows the first bridge going just to the north, and it can touch down at nearly the same point it does now on both the western and eastern shorelines.  While tight, there is enough room to do it without moving the jetty. If it is necessary, a relocated jetty is a very minor expense, especially in comparison to the entire bridge replacement project.

[jmacswimmer]

Interesting to see they're planning to replace the existing bridges entirely. I had previously understood it as retaining the existing bridges and constructing a third.

I believe this was the original plan, but they found replacing the two existing spans more feasible I guess.

I do wonder if the Key Bridge situation contributed to this shift - since any increased vertical clearance on the new Key Bridge would be useless for as long as the current Bay Bridges remain, it would make sense to fully replace the Bay Bridges to the same increased vertical clearance as the new Key Bridge and thus open up the Port of Baltimore to taller ships.

[Plutonic Panda]

It looks like they're considering widening the bridge to 10 lanes, which would be very good news if they do that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/chesapeake-bay-bridge-lanes-travel-beach-maryland-mdta/

[sprjus4]

It looks like they're considering widening the bridge to 10 lanes, which would be very good news if they do that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/chesapeake-bay-bridge-lanes-travel-beach-maryland-mdta/

Replacement, not widening. See above posts.

[The Ghostbuster]

Would replacing the existing bridges with new bridges that are five lanes in each direction be overkill? Will existing US 50/301 have to be expanded from six to ten lanes on the eastern and western approaches to the new bridges?

[jeffandnicole]

Would replacing the existing bridges with new bridges that are five lanes in each direction be overkill? Will existing US 50/301 have to be expanded from six to ten lanes on the eastern and western approaches to the new bridges?

There is a certain amount of overkill there.  Currently it's 2 lanes per direction with a 3rd lane that can contraflow traffic.  Even widening it to 4 lanes per direction doubles non-peak traffic, and provides a critical additional lane in the peak direction, especially for EB traffic that won't need to split and go single-file on the WB bridge.

The approaches don't necessarily need to be widened to contain the same number of lanes on the bridges themselves, although it wouldn't hurt.

[Rothman]

Would replacing the existing bridges with new bridges that are five lanes in each direction be overkill? Will existing US 50/301 have to be expanded from six to ten lanes on the eastern and western approaches to the new bridges?

There is a certain amount of overkill there.  Currently it's 2 lanes per direction with a 3rd lane that can contraflow traffic.  Even widening it to 4 lanes per direction doubles non-peak traffic, and provides a critical additional lane in the peak direction, especially for EB traffic that won't need to split and go single-file on the WB bridge.

The approaches don't necessarily need to be widened to contain the same number of lanes on the bridges themselves, although it wouldn't hurt.

Whatever the number of lanes, if the new bridges still have congestion on weekends due to Ocean City traffic (DC people can't figure out anywhere else to go for vacation), heads will roll.

[epzik8]

Would replacing the existing bridges with new bridges that are five lanes in each direction be overkill? Will existing US 50/301 have to be expanded from six to ten lanes on the eastern and western approaches to the new bridges?

There is a certain amount of overkill there.  Currently it's 2 lanes per direction with a 3rd lane that can contraflow traffic.  Even widening it to 4 lanes per direction doubles non-peak traffic, and provides a critical additional lane in the peak direction, especially for EB traffic that won't need to split and go single-file on the WB bridge.

The approaches don't necessarily need to be widened to contain the same number of lanes on the bridges themselves, although it wouldn't hurt.

Whatever the number of lanes, if the new bridges still have congestion on weekends due to Ocean City traffic (DC people can't figure out anywhere else to go for vacation), heads will roll.

I mean, I-95 north of Fredericksburg still backs up from what I hear.

[Rothman]

Would replacing the existing bridges with new bridges that are five lanes in each direction be overkill? Will existing US 50/301 have to be expanded from six to ten lanes on the eastern and western approaches to the new bridges?

There is a certain amount of overkill there.  Currently it's 2 lanes per direction with a 3rd lane that can contraflow traffic.  Even widening it to 4 lanes per direction doubles non-peak traffic, and provides a critical additional lane in the peak direction, especially for EB traffic that won't need to split and go single-file on the WB bridge.

The approaches don't necessarily need to be widened to contain the same number of lanes on the bridges themselves, although it wouldn't hurt.

Whatever the number of lanes, if the new bridges still have congestion on weekends due to Ocean City traffic (DC people can't figure out anywhere else to go for vacation), heads will roll.

I mean, I-95 north of Fredericksburg still backs up from what I hear.

Of course.  And...?

[RoadPelican]

Yes, plenty of people from DC go to VA Beach and the NC Outer Banks to vacation. But to your point, it would be nice to have a 2nd bay crossing go from Chesapeake Beach to Cambridge. DC traffic can use MD Route 4 instead of all the DC and BAL traffic going on US 50.

[jeffandnicole]

Yes, plenty of people from DC go to VA Beach and the NC Outer Banks to vacation. But to your point, it would be nice to have a 2nd bay crossing go from Chesapeake Beach to Cambridge. DC traffic can use MD Route 4 instead of all the DC and BAL traffic going on US 50.

A second location for a crossing was considered but ultimately decided against. In most cases it would've been a longer bridge, and access roads would need to be built, adding to costs. Locals in those other areas don't want the additional traffic either.

[roadman65]

Well considering one bridge is about 70 years old, it is definitely about time. Today's age it's better and more effective to start from scratch and design what's truly needed.  Possibly two new spans with four lanes each plus shoulders or a wide structure with eight lanes and shoulders is the answer.

I haven't paid attention to the proposals, so the eight lanes is just a guess.

I will say even how  old these bridges are even also are outdated functionally and should be replaced for that reason in addition to the age.

I'm excited to see what they finally decide and look forward the construction when it happens.

Should be a feat to see as many of us were not around when the original and parallel spans were built.

[roadman65]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DHlh0enMAvh/?igsh=dHdqNzdtM3BlOThs

Interesting article about the importance of acting out the replacement.

[Beltway]

The Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), finalized in April 2022, did not provide detailed cost estimates for a bridge option or a tunnel option, as it focused on selecting a corridor (Corridor 7) for further study in Tier 2.

Corridor 7 is a two-mile-wide corridor that follows the existing US 50/301 alignment, encompassing the William Preston Lane Jr. Memorial (Bay) Bridge connecting Anne Arundel and Queen Anne's Counties in Maryland.

The Tier 1 study evaluated broad alternatives but deferred detailed cost analyses to the ongoing Tier 2 NEPA study, which is still in progress and expected to conclude around 2027.

However, related sources provide some context. The Baltimore Banner (November 2024) notes that maintaining the existing Bay Bridge spans would cost $3.8 billion over 40 years, roughly half the cost of building new spans, implying a new bridge could cost around $7.6 billion or more. Tunnel options, like a bridge-tunnel combo, were considered but dismissed in Tier 2 due to costs potentially exceeding twice that of a bridge (estimated $15 billion+), plus greater environmental impacts and restrictions on hazardous material transport.

Exact figures remain speculative until Tier 2 finalizes detailed estimates.

[epzik8]

The Tier 1 study evaluated broad alternatives but deferred detailed cost analyses to the ongoing Tier 2 NEPA study, which is still in progress and expected to conclude around 2027.

Yeah, I've got a feeling the new span is still lightyears away if a study related to it is still two years from wrapping up.

[Beltway]

The Tier 1 study evaluated broad alternatives but deferred detailed cost analyses to the ongoing Tier 2 NEPA study, which is still in progress and expected to conclude around 2027.

Yeah, I've got a feeling the new span is still lightyears away if a study related to it is still two years from wrapping up.

It has been studied and studied ad infinitum for the last 30 some years.

[jeffandnicole]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DHlh0enMAvh/?igsh=dHdqNzdtM3BlOThs

Interesting article about the importance of acting out the replacement.

One of the add-on comments by the news station: "Research released by Johns Hopkins University says that ships are highly likely to collide with major bridges across the United States, with the potential for catastrophic collisions happening every few years."

I'm pretty sure this is their research, based on what I read on another website:  "From 1960 to 2015, there were 35 major bridge collapses worldwide due to ship or barge collision, with a total of 342 people killed, according to a 2018 report from the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure. Eighteen of those collapses happened in the United States.

56 years of history divided by 18 = 3.11 years.  Since "few" has a varying definition, it makes it sound more urgent.  But most of the crashes weren't as notable as the Key Bridge, and were able to be fixed in relatively short order.

[Beltway]

One of the add-on comments by the news station: "Research released by Johns Hopkins University says that ships are highly likely to collide with major bridges across the United States, with the potential for catastrophic collisions happening every few years."
I'm pretty sure this is their research, based on what I read on another website:  "From 1960 to 2015, there were 35 major bridge collapses worldwide due to ship or barge collision, with a total of 342 people killed, according to a 2018 report from the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure. Eighteen of those collapses happened in the United States.
56 years of history divided by 18 = 3.11 years.  Since "few" has a varying definition, it makes it sound more urgent.  But most of the crashes weren't as notable as the Key Bridge, and were able to be fixed in relatively short order.

The Chesapeake Bay Bridge has deep water around to the point that the shipping channel is in deep enough water that dredging was not needed for about 3 miles north of the bridge to about 12 miles south of the bridge.

This deep water would complicate the installation of any protection system worth its merit.

The Sunshine Skyway disaster in 1980 left one of the bridges undamaged and open to traffic. With one two-lane roadway it would have been congested for a number of hours per day, but it did remain open until the new bridge opened.

The bridge that did collapse just partly affected the main channel. An anchorage pier was hit, not a main span pier. A narrower channel was maintained at 36 feet deep until the wreckage was cleared.

The Key Bridge collapse blocked the main channel for 8 weeks and estimated economic losses are $3 to $5 billion for the shipping suspensions.

Key Bridge timeline per my records       
March 26, 1:30 am -- collapse   
Mar. 30, 31   Large barges with cranes arriving      

Apr. 1   Open north temp channel   
It will be limited for transit at the discretion of the COTP and during daylight hours only. This temporary channel has a controlling depth of 11 feet, a 264-foot horizontal clearance, and vertical clearance of 95 feet.

Apr. 2   Open south temp channel   
The second temporary channel is marked with government lighted aids to navigation and will be limited to transit at the discretion of the COTP and during daylight hours only. It has a controlling depth of 14 feet, a 280-foot horizontal clearance, and a vertical clearance of 124 feet.   

Apr. 19   Unified Command opens third temporary alternate channel. The Fort Carroll Temporary Alternate Channel has a controlling depth of 20 feet, a 300-foot horizontal clearance, and a vertical clearance of 135 feet, and will facilitate additional commercially essential vessel traffic through the port of Baltimore.
      
May 21st  Removed Dali from channel      
May 25th  Channel fully open to controlling depth of 50 feet at mean low water