Maryland

[epzik8]

Does the ETL project extend past MD 543? Saw new construction and camera signage NB right at the exit. Seems a bit discontinuous from the work up to Bynum Run, where I thought the lanes ended

The original ETL plans showed both carriage ways starting/ending just before the spot where I-95's median widens for Maryland House. Past that point, I-95 was planned to be widened to eight lanes up a point just past Exit 85. I don't know how much of the original plans have been retained for the northbound ETL project currently in progress.

95 north of the 136 overpass (south of 543) is untouched.

[davewiecking]

Does the ETL project extend past MD 543? Saw new construction and camera signage NB right at the exit. Seems a bit discontinuous from the work up to Bynum Run, where I thought the lanes ended

The original ETL plans showed both carriage ways starting/ending just before the spot where I-95's median widens for Maryland House. Past that point, I-95 was planned to be widened to eight lanes up a point just past Exit 85. I don't know how much of the original plans have been retained for the northbound ETL project currently in progress.

Looks like it might be for the 543 interchange itself because the end signs were posted just before that. The strange thing is there were End Work Zone signs at Bynum Run, then more camera zone signage 1/2 mile later

MD-543 bridge is getting painted.

[epzik8]

Does the ETL project extend past MD 543? Saw new construction and camera signage NB right at the exit. Seems a bit discontinuous from the work up to Bynum Run, where I thought the lanes ended

The original ETL plans showed both carriage ways starting/ending just before the spot where I-95's median widens for Maryland House. Past that point, I-95 was planned to be widened to eight lanes up a point just past Exit 85. I don't know how much of the original plans have been retained for the northbound ETL project currently in progress.

Looks like it might be for the 543 interchange itself because the end signs were posted just before that. The strange thing is there were End Work Zone signs at Bynum Run, then more camera zone signage 1/2 mile later

MD-543 bridge is getting painted.

Just saw the signs that got put up near the exit this weekend.

[Beltway]

Maryland DOT is currently pursuing a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study to rethink the Cumberland Viaduct, citing its deteriorating condition and safety concerns. A full deck replacement is estimated to cost over $100 million, but even that wouldn't resolve the geometric limitations.

MSHA is still in the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) phase for the I-68 Cumberland Viaduct, and while they've acknowledged the need for "possible realignment," no formal alternatives have been defined or released for public review.

What's on the table so far

The current $2 million PEL study aims to:
+ Define project needs and goals, including safety, mobility, and community connectivity
+ Develop conceptual alternatives, which may include realignment, deck replacement, or full reconstruction
+ Conduct traffic and crash analysis, especially around steep grades and sharp curves
+ Engage the public, with emphasis on reconnecting downtown Cumberland and mitigating the viaduct's divisive footprint
Why alternatives are still undefined
+ MDOT is intentionally keeping the scope open to invite community input before locking in design paths
+ The existing structure is nearing the end of its service life, but a $100M deck replacement would only extend it 30–40 years without solving geometric or urban integration issues
+ Realignment could involve rerouting I-68, modifying interchanges, or even removing elevated segments—but all of that depends on feasibility, cost, and public support

So for now, "possible realignment" is a placeholder for a range of ideas that haven't yet been sketched out. Once the PEL study wraps, we'll likely see defined alternatives emerge in the NEPA phase.

https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/OPCP/MDOT_BIPGrant_I-68CumberlandViaduct.pdf

[Rothman]

An apt use of the PEL mechanism to streamline NEPA.

[Beltway]

An apt use of the PEL mechanism to streamline NEPA.

The Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) approach was formally introduced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in 2007 as part of their joint planning regulations. It appeared as Appendix A to the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning rules, offering guidance on how planning products could be incorporated into the NEPA process.

While PEL had been conceptually discussed earlier, 2007 marked its official federal endorsement—encouraging agencies to use planning studies to inform environmental reviews and accelerate project delivery.

The approach gained further traction under the FAST Act of 2015, which included provisions to integrate planning and environmental review, reinforcing PEL as a tool for streamlining NEPA compliance.
https://www.planning.dot.gov/planning/topic_pel.aspx

While PEL was formally named and structured in 2007, its philosophy of early coordination and data reuse has roots going back nearly four decades. It's the culmination of efforts to make transportation decision-making more efficient, transparent, and environmentally responsible.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would support reconstructing the Interstate 68 viaduct to modern design standards, as long as it could be done with as few relocations of homes and businesses as possible.

[lepidopteran]

I would support reconstructing the Interstate 68 viaduct to modern design standards, as long as it could be done with as few relocations of homes and businesses as possible.

Perhaps the viaduct could be rebuilt as earthen infill, with underpasses as needed?  You only got a few roads, two railroads, and of course the river to be spanned.  There's a parking area under the bridge that can be relocated, and some of the roads could be consolidated/rerouted.

[Beltway]

I would support reconstructing the Interstate 68 viaduct to modern design standards, as long as it could be done with as few relocations of homes and businesses as possible.

Perhaps the viaduct could be rebuilt as earthen infill, with underpasses as needed?  You only got a few roads, two railroads, and of course the river to be spanned.  There's a parking area under the bridge that can be relocated, and some of the roads could be consolidated/rerouted.

I have reviewed it in depth on satellite views -- it will be very difficult to build a route with a 50 mph design speed (the minimum for an urban Interstate) given urban buildings, crossing roads, at least two urban interchanges, and the river which is the boundary with West Virginia.

[vdeane]

The easiest way to get things on a better geometry would be to consolidate the interchanges.  Rebuild exit 41B or C to modern standards, and dump every other suffix of exit 41.

[Beltway]

The easiest way to get things on a better geometry would be to consolidate the interchanges.  Rebuild exit 41B or C to modern standards, and dump every other suffix of exit 41.

Any alternative I can see, it would be a highly impacting urban freeway project.

I don't think relocating to a bypass would work (that may be one of their alternatives), it is mountainous to the north and they would have to go thru West Virginia to the south and there is no good place to put it.

[Bitmapped]

I went to the Salisbury area over the weekend, coming over I-70 to MD 32 to I-97 to US 50. Some general observations:

• MD 32 and I-97 encounter a lot of delays from merges during the afternoon. It seems like longer merge areas would help substantially.
• The eastbound onramp at Exit 30 (Whitehall Road) should probably be closed. It just causes long backups of cars spilling back into the MD 179 interchange to the west on the surface roads.
• What's with SHA either ignoring US 301 during its concurrency with US 50 or mis-signing its direction?
• The turn from US 50 westbound to MD 18 westbound at Queenstown should be closed. It took a long time before I found a gap large enough to make the turn, and with traffic going ~65mph on a curve with limited sight distance, I have to think this has a high accident rate.
• I understand SHA eventually plans to upgrade US 50 to a freeway from US 301 to MD 404, which is definitely needed. The traffic signals and merge from MD 404 cause backups.
• As an interim measure until an interchange can be built, it seems like the free-flowing right turn from MD 404 west to US 50 west should be converted to a two-lane signalized right turn. Cars get dumped into the already heavy traffic on US 50 and end up interfering with that flow right now.
• Does SHA have any plans for upgrading US 50 south/east of MD 404? At the very least, it seems like eliminating traffic signals between MD 404 and Cambridge is justified. Traffic generally seems OK east of Cambridge, and I saw a lot of RCUTs and RIROs here, but west of Cambridge has much more volume and has had fewer upgrades.
• SHA has implemented really long cycle times along US 50 and also on MD 404 at traffic lights. I had a USPS truck get impatient waiting behind me at the light at the MD 404/MD 480 intersection near Hillsboro and go off the pavement to go around me. If they're going to use such long lights, SHA should probably ensure there are dedicated right turn lanes to permit right turn on red.

[Beltway]

• I understand SHA eventually plans to upgrade US 50 to a freeway from US 301 to MD 404, which is definitely needed. The traffic signals and merge from MD 404 cause backups.

Studies dating back to the 1970s, a 6-lane US-50 built to full freeway standards. Alternatives include upgrade existing highway, partial relocation of US-50, and full relocation of US-50.

I don't think it has ever yet been programmed in the CTP for construction. A $200+ million project today.

• Does SHA have any plans for upgrading US 50 south/east of MD 404? At the very least, it seems like eliminating traffic signals between MD 404 and Cambridge? Traffic generally seems OK east of Cambridge, and I saw a lot of RCUTs and RIROs here, but west of Cambridge has much more volume and has had fewer upgrades.

None that I have ever heard of, and my experience with the Eastern Shore goes back to the early 1970s.

The mostly 2-lane western bypass of Easton was built on limited access 4-lane R/W, and would be an obvious way to upgrade to a 4-lane bypass of the city.

[Mr_Northside]

The eastbound onramp at Exit 30 (Whitehall Road) should probably be closed. It just causes long backups of cars spilling back into the MD 179 interchange to the west on the surface roads.

I thought they were doing a thing during summer weekends where a lot of those on-ramps a couple of miles before the Bay Bridge were closed.  I can't remember the specifics of what I had read, but the gist was if it's your intention was to cross the Bay Bridge, you'd have to backtrack to (maybe) Exit 27 or 28 to get on 50/301 EB.  I could swear I recall seeing portable VMS signs warning of no eastbound re-entry at some of those exits on my way to Ocean City last year. 
I could easily be wrong, or maybe it was a 1-2 year trial thing they decided to not do anymore.

[TheOneKEA]

I went to the Salisbury area over the weekend, coming over I-70 to MD 32 to I-97 to US 50. Some general observations:

• MD 32 and I-97 encounter a lot of delays from merges during the afternoon. It seems like longer merge areas would help substantially.

Indeed, and the problem is chronic during both peak periods. The primary problems seem to be the loop ramp from MD 175 west to MD 32 west/north, the on-ramp from MD 198 east to MD 32 east/south, and the lack of an auxiliary lane between the on-ramp from Dorsey Run Road (unsigned MD 732) to MD 32 west and the C/D lane that diverges in the US 1 cloverleaf. All three areas could be fixed by lengthening the existing auxiliary lanes or adding them where they are not present. As for I-97, the mainline between MD 3/MD 32 and I-595/US 50/US 301 is planned to be widened to three lanes per direction, for a total of six lanes.

A grander plan would be to widen the entire MD 32 mainline between MD 198 and MD 175 to three lanes per direction. This would take care of the large commuter flows from I-95 and the B-W Parkway that use MD 198 and MD 175 to go around the Patuxent Wildlife Research Refuge to reach MD 3, MD 424 and MD 450 to go to Bowie and Annapolis.

• The eastbound onramp at Exit 30 (Whitehall Road) should probably be closed. It just causes long backups of cars spilling back into the MD 179 interchange to the west on the surface roads.
• What's with SHA either ignoring US 301 during its concurrency with US 50 or mis-signing its direction?

MDOT SHA has always done a poor job of signing US 301 along the mainline, mainly because of the heavy cultural impact of US 50 as the route "down the ocean". Nearly all of the intersection and interchange signage on highways that intersect the concurrent mainline does an adequate job of advertising both highways, but there are still many spots where US 50 is very prominent and US 301 is not.

• The turn from US 50 westbound to MD 18 westbound at Queenstown should be closed. It took a long time before I found a gap large enough to make the turn, and with traffic going ~65mph on a curve with limited sight distance, I have to think this has a high accident rate.

The entire intersection should be closed until it can be grade separated, or left closed permanently. Access to the communities south and west of US 50 is available via the exit at Nesbit Road, and the segment of MD 18 north and east of US 50 can be truncated at the US 301/MD 456/MD 656 group of intersections north of the Queenstown Outlets.

[Bitmapped]

• The turn from US 50 westbound to MD 18 westbound at Queenstown should be closed. It took a long time before I found a gap large enough to make the turn, and with traffic going ~65mph on a curve with limited sight distance, I have to think this has a high accident rate.

The entire intersection should be closed until it can be grade separated, or left closed permanently. Access to the communities south and west of US 50 is available via the exit at Nesbit Road, and the segment of MD 18 north and east of US 50 can be truncated at the US 301/MD 456/MD 656 group of intersections north of the Queenstown Outlets.

I like your idea of closing the US 50/MD 18 intersection. Even if you get rid of the left turn movement, the RIROs aren't great and duplicate other nearby options.

If you wanted to keep MD 18 continuous, it wouldn't be hard to multiplex it with US 301. That would actually make the route followable, which it really isn't now given the prohibitions on straight-through movements at the US 50 and US 301 intersections.