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.

[jmacswimmer]

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.

IIRC both the exit 30 & 32 onramps were closed during the initial trial a couple summers ago (and exit 31 was permanently closed at the same time), but after that first summer only the exit 32 onramp has been closed which has been the case this summer as well. If I had to guess, SHA probably determined that closing both put too much pressure on the exit 29 onramp?

As an aside, I find it somewhat amusing that closing the exit 32 onramp simply reverses the direction of congestion along Whitehall Road from eastbound to westbound - presumably from traffic using College Parkway on the north side of 50/301, getting to exit 32 and realizing the onramp is closed, and then having to backtrack on Whitehall Road along the south side of 50/301.

Edit: Here's a link to SHA's landing page for the "project":
https://mdot-sha-us50-301-broadneck-peninsula-service-roads-maryland.hub.arcgis.com/

[RoadPelican]

Question: I understand SHA eventually plans to upgrade US 50 to a freeway from US 301 to MD 404, which is definitely needed.

Answer: The priority right now in Queen Anne's County is on US 301 and not US 50. They want to convert the two at grade intersections of US 301 & MD 19, along with US 301 & MD 405 into interchanges. Lots of safety concerns with turning & cross traffic on a rural straight highway where everyone is going WELL ABOVE the 55 MPH Speed Limit. This is similar to what was done with MD 213 & MD 304 back in the 1990's. And a couple more up the road in Kent County.

Long term this could be great for economic development in the Upper Eastern Shore. The 55 MPH Speed Limit would become a 70 MPH Speed Limit if SHA can ever get those at-grade intersections converted to interchanges.

[RoadPelican]

As far as improving anything on US 50 East & South of MD 404 there is nothing on the drawing board at this point. 

US 50 thru Cambridge is the main commercial corridor and upgrading it to an expressway is impossible.

If you built a new US 50 (bypass) then you would have to built a new bridge over the Choptank River and built the bypass several miles to the east or west because the town of Cambridge and all the commercial development starts immediately after you go over the bridge (driving south).

You could built a bypass of Easton and it could go to the east of town but the government of Easton views this more of a long term plan and nothing is even in the planning stages at this date.

Back in the 1990's there was a proposal to widen the Easton Parkway (MD 322) to 4 lanes but it got voted down after a lot of citizen opposition. A lot of residents view MD 322 as their own bypass aka locals only let the people from the Western Shore use Route 50.

Same thing happened in the early 2000's with a proposed project called "the eastside collector"

Although, the town of Easton did end up widening US 50 thru town from 4 to 6 lanes around 2005-2010 or so but there are still plenty of traffic lights on US 50 thru Easton.

Even if you got a Easton Bypass planned out, you would have to overcome a lot of NIMBY & the "keep Easton a small town forever crowd"

You would really need a Governor who is Pro-Eastern Shore such as William Donald Schafer or Larry Hogan to get any improvements on US 50 thru Easton & Cambridge.

Schafer thru his "Reach the Beach" program upgraded US 50 to an expressway from Annapolis to Queenstown as well as built a bypass around Vienna and a new bridge over the Nanticoke River and a new one over the Choptank River. All of those projects were built between 1987 & 1991. The last project was the Western Salisbury Bypass and that was finished around 2002-2003.

Hogan got MD 404 widened from US 50 to Denton.

[TheOneKEA]

Question: I understand SHA eventually plans to upgrade US 50 to a freeway from US 301 to MD 404, which is definitely needed.

Answer: The priority right now in Queen Anne's County is on US 301 and not US 50. They want to convert the two at grade intersections of US 301 & MD 19, along with US 301 & MD 405 into interchanges. Lots of safety concerns with turning & cross traffic on a rural straight highway where everyone is going WELL ABOVE the 55 MPH Speed Limit. This is similar to what was done with MD 213 & MD 304 back in the 1990's. And a couple more up the road in Kent County.

Long term this could be great for economic development in the Upper Eastern Shore. The 55 MPH Speed Limit would become a 70 MPH Speed Limit if SHA can ever get those at-grade intersections converted to interchanges.

The long shadow of the NMSL is still felt here, thanks to "Billy Don" Schaefer and his insistence on adhering to the limit so strictly. This highway could be signposted at 65mph right now and I would not be shocked if there was no measurable change in vehicle accidents or incidents.

As far as improving anything on US 50 East & South of MD 404 there is nothing on the drawing board at this point. 

US 50 thru Cambridge is the main commercial corridor and upgrading it to an expressway is impossible.

If you built a new US 50 (bypass) then you would have to built a new bridge over the Choptank River and built the bypass several miles to the east or west because the town of Cambridge and all the commercial development starts immediately after you go over the bridge (driving south).

I have read that the town of Cambridge specifically demanded that US 50 be widened through the town and that the current bridge should be built adjacent to the old bridge in order to prevent the economic devastation that they perceived would happen if US 50 were rerouted away from the town. A freeway bypass of Cambridge would require a 10-plus mile detour inland south and east of Secretary and New Market and that would be very expensive.

You could built a bypass of Easton and it could go to the east of town but the government of Easton views this more of a long term plan and nothing is even in the planning stages at this date.

Back in the 1990's there was a proposal to widen the Easton Parkway (MD 322) to 4 lanes but it got voted down after a lot of citizen opposition. A lot of residents view MD 322 as their own bypass aka locals only let the people from the Western Shore use Route 50.

Same thing happened in the early 2000's with a proposed project called "the eastside collector"

Although, the town of Easton did end up widening US 50 thru town from 4 to 6 lanes around 2005-2010 or so but there are still plenty of traffic lights on US 50 thru Easton.

Even if you got a Easton Bypass planned out, you would have to overcome a lot of NIMBY & the "keep Easton a small town forever crowd"

This is the first time I've ever heard of this. I can almost certainly guarantee that a loooooot of Western Shire residents are using MD 322 to go around the congestion of US 50. It's not a secret anymore, if it ever was, and refusing to widen it because of NIMBYism is going to make MD 322 just as dangerous as MD 404 was before it was widened.

[Beltway]

If you built a new US 50 (bypass) then you would have to built a new bridge over the Choptank River and built the bypass several miles to the east or west because the town of Cambridge and all the commercial development starts immediately after you go over the bridge (driving south).

That was the original plan -- build the 4-lane bridge on an alignment that would bypass east of the developed area. Local businesses objected and applied enough pressure to oppose a bypass.

Part of the bridge replacement project 1984-87 was to widen US-50 to six lanes in town.

It also included a later phase to build an urban interchange between US-50 and Meteor Avenue. But has not been built.

Given the current highway it is most unlikely that another 4-lane bridge will be built on a bypass route.

[epzik8]

I now have the honor of getting to say I saw the I-270 ramp meters before they became operational (I had to do some running around in MoCo today).

[Bitmapped]

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.

Prefacing my comments with the note that I drive to or through downtown Cumberland on average more than once a month, my thoughts are:

Upgrade on Current Alignment
If you keep things on the current alignment, I think you basically have to keep Exits 43B-C as they are. They interact decently with the downtown street grid and provide access to MD 51 (Industrial Boulevard). You could get away with closing westbound Exit 43B (MD 51) and redirect that traffic to Exit 43C, but the rest isn't readily relocatable. Things are shoehorned in between the C&O Canal, Wills Creek, and the CSX mainline. You're not going to be able to rebuild this as a more standard interchange without severely impacting the flow of traffic to downtown.

There is some traffic that uses Exit 43D to get around the railroad tracks. If you were to close this exit, you're going to have to build a new overpass of the railroad which is difficult given the physical constraints.

I don't see Exit 43A going away, at least not in its entirety. The individual eastbound onramp from Kelly Road could be eliminated, but locals in Cumberland and WV aren't going to be happy if you removed access to/from the west here. There isn't really anywhere else to relocated the eastbound on/off ramps, and I don't know there'd be much to benefit to relocating the westbound on/off ramps.

Putting the highway on raised fill instead of bridges is a non-starter. It would be even more of a visual barrier, would eliminate parking and alleyways, and would cut Canal Place in half.

Relocating Highway
Despite the complexity, I think this is the better answer as it helps to clean up a lot of issues.

Heading eastbound, I would envision I-68 crossing the North Branch Potomac River into WV and then back into MD on a centerline around the present WV 28 ALT/Jewell Street intersection. As it came back into MD, it would start an arc to the northern passing through the northern part of the Fairfield Inn, cross Park Street roughly at Cecilia Street, and tie back in to I-68 just east of Maryland Avenue.

There would be three interchanges:

• Diamond interchange (Exit 43A) at Lee Street, with an access road connecting to WV 28 ALT.
• Parclo or similar interchange at Mechanic Street/Industrial Boulevard, replacing current Exits 43B and 43C.
• Partial diamond allowing access to/from the east at Maryland Avenue, replacing Exit 43D.

You'd see some street reconfiguration going along with this:

• New access road between Exit 43A and WV 28 ALT, along with likely WV 28 ALT upgrades to bypass the height-restricted railroad underpass.
• Mechanic Street and Industrial Boulevard merged into each other seamlessly.
• Queen City Drive ties into Mechanic Street/Industrial Boulevard at or just north of new I-68 interchange.
• Williams Street overpass built to replace previously closed at-grade railroad crossing and replace missing movements from Exit 43D.
• Centre Street terminates at Queen City Drive/Williams Street intersection, as it does now.
• Other streets east and west of railroad tracks cleaned up as appropriate.

The residential impacts of this plan would be pretty minimal, about a dozen houses in Ridgeley WV. The houses around Maryland Avenue have pretty much all already been demolished. You'd lose some commercial and industrial land. You'd also lose or build over a bit of the reconstructed C&O Canal's tail at the very southern end of Canal Place.

In exchange, you get rid of the big curve eastbound at the bottom of the hill, the winding viaduct, and markedly improve traffic flow heading towards South Cumberland and on the west side of Cumberland. Most usefully, you get rid of the highway cutting right through the tourist area at Canal Place and open a swath of land adjoining that and on the edge of downtown Cumberland for redevelopment.

West Virginia built and maintains parts of US 52/US 119 in Kentucky because that was the most logical alignment on reconstruction. I imagine the same would happen here - Maryland would be responsible for the part that crosses into West Virginia. WV would conceivably cover the new access road to and upgrades for WV 28 ALT.

No matter what you do, this is a matter of threading the needle through some tight constraints.

[vdeane]

If traffic to/from downtown could cope with a relocated I-68, I think it could cope with having some ramps eliminated.  If eliminating, say, exit 43D were intolerable, I don't see how moving I-68 out of that area entirely would make that any less intolerable.

[Bitmapped]

If traffic to/from downtown could cope with a relocated I-68, I think it could cope with having some ramps eliminated.  If eliminating, say, exit 43D were intolerable, I don't see how moving I-68 out of that area entirely would make that any less intolerable.

I'm talking about shifting the alignment south about 500 feet, not moving I-68 out of the area. This isn't a such a significant distance that it impacts access to/from the downtown, but it does move things enough to break out out of the geometric constraints of the downtown street grid and removes one set of railroad tracks as an obstacle.

A big part of why the ramps in Cumberland are designed as they are is because of the need to ensure vertical clearance over Western Maryland Scenic Railroad/Canal Place on the west side of downtown and the CSX mainline on the east side. The current ramp configuration gives provides that vertical clearance.

You're not going to reconfigure eastbound Exit 43B on the current alignment to also serve downtown. You'd end up with insufficient vertical clearance over the railroad/park and/or would impact the NRHP-listed Footer's Dye Works building. That necessitates at least Exit 43A to pick up that load for the western side of downtown (including Canal Place), and likely the retention of Exit 43C to serve the east side of downtown. There's only one eastbound on ramp in the core of downtown, and that one can't be relocated because of vertical clearance requirements.

You could maybe get rid of Exit 43D if you built a new railroad overpass to downtown and improved access using the local street grid to Exit 44. I up-thread indicated it would likely be feasible, perhaps even preferable, to eliminate Exit 43B as that traffic could be rerouted and it would free up more land around Canal Place. That's pretty much the only ramp in central Cumberland (Exits 43B and 43C) that I could actually see going away on the current alignment without requiring significant improvements to the local street grid.