US 50/301(Chesapeake Bay Bridge)

[TheOneKEA]

I agree with Beltway's negative thoughts on a Southern crossing of the Bay. Speaking for myself, I would rather see a new Northern crossing of the Bay, but not necessarily between Turkey Neck and Tolchester Beach. A new Northern crossing would provide direct access from the upper Eastern Shore (a different type of rural than the lower Shore) and Baltimore City and remove a LOT of through traffic from US 40, US 50, parts of I-95 and parts of MD 404. However I am under no illusions about how contentious and how controversial a Northern crossing would be today.

Regarding the proposed pedestrian and bike facility, I believe that the lack of any existing pedestrian-affiliated infrastructure on either side of the Potomac was the reason that the Nice Bridge lacks such a facility. A segregated pedestrian and bike facility that links Sandy Point State Park with the Terrapin Nature Preserve, Matapeake State Park and the Kent Island Trail is MUCH more viable and would provide routings similar in character to those provided by the segregated facility on the Wilson Bridge's Inner Loop span.

[Beltway]

I agree with Beltway's negative thoughts on a Southern crossing of the Bay. Speaking for myself, I would rather see a new Northern crossing of the Bay, but not necessarily between Turkey Neck and Tolchester Beach. A new Northern crossing would provide direct access from the upper Eastern Shore (a different type of rural than the lower Shore) and Baltimore City and remove a LOT of through traffic from US 40, US 50, parts of I-95 and parts of MD 404. However I am under no illusions about how contentious and how controversial a Northern crossing would be today.

Edgemere to Tolchester Beach was the first bay crossing studied, back in the 1920s, and that would have been railroad.

Issue of going further north to Edgewood or Aberdeen is that it is farther from Baltimore and would have less of a catchment for traffic between Baltimore and the Eastern Shore.

This 1964 report was on engineering location studies for 3 crossings; looking at a second span for the 2-lane 1952-built Sandy Point to Kent Island bridge, at the aforementioned unbuilt northern crossing, and at a southern crossing between Calvert County and Dorchester County.

The northern Bay Bridge would have been about 6.9 miles long, with 2 lanes, connecting between Miller Island east of Edgemere in Baltimore County, and Tolchester Beach in Kent County, and it would have also involved a bridge about 1.0 mile long connecting Miller Island to the Western Shore either at Cedar Point on the Essex Peninsula or at North Point on the Dundalk Peninsula. Connecting highway would have extended west (with several different alternative possibilities) to the then-as-yet-unbuilt eastern portion of the Baltimore Beltway and the then-as-yet-unbuilt Patapsco Freeway, and east to US-301 about 3 miles east of Centreville in Queen Anne's County. About 15 miles of new highway needed to connect it to US-301.

[Rothman]

I'm not so sure a crossing north of the current one would remove that much traffic.  Of course, I'm biased by my time working in DC where most of the staff discussed going to Ocean City for whichever weekends.  Wonder how much traffic across the bridge is vacation traffic in the summertime.

[Beltway]

I'm not so sure a crossing north of the current one would remove that much traffic.  Of course, I'm biased by my time working in DC where most of the staff discussed going to Ocean City for whichever weekends.  Wonder how much traffic across the bridge is vacation traffic in the summertime.

For the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, the most recent Maryland Transportation Authority data reports an AADT of about 75,000 vehicles per day.

That figure represents the average daily traffic across the entire year, smoothing out the winter lows (~60,000/day) and summer highs (>100,000/day on peak weekends).

So over 30,000 vehicles on the summer busy days are vacation or at least to a weekend home or boat on the Eastern Shore, motorists whose main residence is on the Western Shore (that is what residents on the Eastern Shore call all of Maryland west of the Bay and east of Western Maryland).

[Henry]

Most likely, they will replace the only two suspension bridges in the state with what would become the second and third cable-stayed bridges (after the new Key Bridge opens in five years from now). The ones that are there now can be easily told from each other, and it's not like they're endangered either, but I guess the new ones are needed with the traffic increases that will continue to choke up the current crossings until they are eventually replaced. With the homogenization of bridge design these days, it looks like the new crossings will look exactly the same and no longer be distinct from one another.

[Great Lakes Roads]

In terms of the price of the new Bay Bridges (from the MDTA and in 2025 dollars)-

Without the shared-use path: $14.8-$16.4 billion
With the shared-use path: $16.1-$17.6 billion

(Yes, I was predicting around the $15 billion range for this bridge replacement project based on the FSK Bridge replacement cost at around $5 billion with twice the length and building two new bridges instead of one.)

[Plutonic Panda]

I hope they add the bike path but a billion dollars give or take for it? Wtf!?

[jeffandnicole]

I hope they add the bike path but a billion dollars give or take for it? Wtf!?

On average the bridge price estimate a bit over $1 bn per lane, so figuring the shared use path is basically a lane, that price increase for another lane is reasonable.

[sprjus4]

If the Nice Bridge replacement is any indication, they will probably find a way to reduce the shoulder widths to 2 ft and eliminate any multi-use facilities. Could shave off some money.

[Beltway]

I hope they add the bike path but a billion dollars give or take for it? Wtf!?

On average the bridge price estimate a bit over $1 bn per lane, so figuring the shared use path is basically a lane, that price increase for another lane is reasonable.

The Woodrow Wilson Bridge bike/ped path that opened in 2009 is not roadway deck construction -- it is a thin reinforced concrete slab built outward from the main deck. Not 12 feet wide, 8 feet wide, did not require the piers to be extended underneath it.

That is all that is needed.

[Beltway]

In terms of the price of the new Bay Bridges (from the MDTA and in 2025 dollars)-
Without the shared-use path: $14.8-$16.4 billion
With the shared-use path: $16.1-$17.6 billion
(Yes, I was predicting around the $15 billion range for this bridge replacement project based on the FSK Bridge replacement cost at around $5 billion with twice the length and building two new bridges instead of one.)

Funny how this rudderless agency announces this unfunded miracle right when the Key Bridge scheme is under intense review and scrutiny and possible withdrawal of funds by the feds and that includes the fact that it has 45 more feet of vertical navigational clearance than the Bay Bridge.

[Great Lakes Roads]

There are two bridge types that the MDTA is looking at, both with a vertical clearance of 230 feet.

Suspension bridge with the height of the towers at ~400 feet
Cable-stayed bridge with the height of the towers at ~570 feet

[Beltway]

It is a pipe dream. MDTA's legislated bonding capacity is $4 billion and almost all has been issued in toll revenue bonds. There is no $15 billion for this scheme.

I expect a realistic scheme like building a new 3-lane bridge for eastbound traffic. The complex will have 3 lanes each way and 2 lanes reversible, and no 2-way traffic at any time.

[Rothman]

They're already at Draft EIS.  Will be interesting how the Final EIS looks.  I'd also assume funding options have already been discussed by this stage and such discussions are ongoing given the alternatives therein.

Further along than I thought, which is good.

[epzik8]

There are two bridge types that the MDTA is looking at, both with a vertical clearance of 230 feet.

Suspension bridge with the height of the towers at ~400 feet
Cable-stayed bridge with the height of the towers at ~570 feet

I just don't understand the obsession with cable-stayed bridges nowadays. I know trusses are more or less a thing of the past, but I don't understand the specific appeal of cable as the design trend to replace it.

[Rothman]

There are two bridge types that the MDTA is looking at, both with a vertical clearance of 230 feet.

Suspension bridge with the height of the towers at ~400 feet
Cable-stayed bridge with the height of the towers at ~570 feet

I just don't understand the obsession with cable-stayed bridges nowadays. I know trusses are more or less a thing of the past, but I don't understand the specific appeal of cable as the design trend to replace it.

Traditional gusseted trusses are dangerous -- one member fails, the bridge goes down.  Modern gussetless trusses are expensive (NYSDOT is building one at US 11 over Oneida Lake, north of Syracuse; design was to pass the State Historic Preservation Office's muster, per my understanding).

Cable-stayed bridges have simply proven to be safer and cheaper.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[Beltway]

They're not "further along than you thought." A Draft EIS doesn't mean the project is anywhere close to final approval. It simply means the agency has completed the analysis phase required by NEPA. Every major project reaches Draft EIS long before funding, design, or federal authorization are locked in.

The Final EIS won't magically appear either -- it requires a full public‑comment review, revisions, and a Record of Decision from the lead agency. None of that guarantees construction, and none of it means funding is secured. In fact, most projects at the Draft EIS stage still have unresolved cost, scope, and funding questions, and many never advance beyond this point.

"Assuming funding options have already been discussed" is just that -- an assumption. Until there's a formal funding plan, a federal commitment, and a completed ROD, this is still a concept on paper, not a green‑lit project.

In other words, Draft EIS is the beginning of the federal decision process, not evidence that the project is "far along." Claiming otherwise is wishful thinking, not how NEPA or federal funding actually works.

[Beltway]

Cable‑stayed bridges aren't a magic solution either. They're chosen today because they hit a sweet spot for medium‑to‑long spans where suspension bridges are overkill and trusses become cost‑inefficient. But they come with their own issues -- complex stay‑cable maintenance, vibration and fatigue management, long‑term dehumidification systems and higher lifecycle costs than people assume.

[Rothman]

They're not "further along than you thought." A Draft EIS doesn't mean the project is anywhere close to final approval. It simply means the agency has completed the analysis phase required by NEPA. Every major project reaches Draft EIS long before funding, design, or federal authorization are locked in.

The Final EIS won't magically appear either -- it requires a full public‑comment review, revisions, and a Record of Decision from the lead agency. None of that guarantees construction, and none of it means funding is secured. In fact, most projects at the Draft EIS stage still have unresolved cost, scope, and funding questions, and many never advance beyond this point.

"Assuming funding options have already been discussed" is just that -- an assumption. Until there's a formal funding plan, a federal commitment, and a completed ROD, this is still a concept on paper, not a green‑lit project.

In other words, Draft EIS is the beginning of the federal decision process, not evidence that the project is "far along." Claiming otherwise is wishful thinking, not how NEPA or federal funding actually works.

Final EIS is due in November, so it is further along than I thought.  All I can say is that in my experience, if a draft EIS is out for public review, the project sponsor has definitely put a lot of thought into how the project will progress, if only because of how quickly design-build projects progress, especially once FEIS/ROD is obtained.  Sponsors typically do not want to put anything out there for the public without making sure it passes some sort of threshold for feasibility, so I'd hope MDTA followed that tried-and-true method before releasing a draft EIS to the public.

So, yes, they will go through the public hearing process -- they're well on their way to getting NEPA approval now, which will be had at Final EIS/ROD.  Given that the next major milestone after ROD is RFP development for final design/construction (with construction authorization occurring at final RFP), MDTA has to have at least some ducks in the row funding-wise in order to keep the project on schedule.  It's also not like project sponsors do all this work on their own and then turn to FHWA for approval.  They work hand-in-hand through this phase to ensure that they'll get NEPA approval when they need it (to avoid FHWA disapproval).

That said, lawsuits can certainly delay funding authorization, but I wouldn't bet on something like that delaying actual construction (shovels in the ground), although it is a possibility.  Again, that probability of a lack of an effect on the schedule is one of the benefits of the design-build process (and, have to say, again, that I'm not a design-build fan -- as one NYSDOT employee I heard say bluntly, "You pay twice the price to get a project done in half the time." -- the "approved list" of consultants/contractors that are usually associated with design-build also chafes).

Like I said, I look forward to what changes are made between now and the FEIS and it can be surprising how quickly major changes can be incorporated into a megaproject, especially since final design is punted off to the design-build consultant/contractor.

It's actually rather exciting.  Given this replacement has been out there in the ether for years, I was indeed surprised that they're marching towards FEIS/ROD already.

(personal opinion emphasized)

(ETA: Effect on parklands -- 4(f) -- review will be a serious concern on this project as well, but looks like MDTA has anticipated that obstacle as well, per the presentation, anyway...)

[Beltway]

$15 billion for this scheme is still a pipe dream, however. No Financial Plan has been released.

You're reading far more into "FEIS due in November" than the process actually supports. A project can be on track for a Final EIS and still be nowhere close to construction authorization. NEPA is a paperwork milestone, not a funding milestone, not a design milestone, and not a commitment to build. Agencies routinely advance a Draft EIS and even a Final EIS for projects that never receive a ROD, never receive funding, or never proceed past conceptual design.

The idea that MDTA "must have their ducks in a row funding‑wise" to stay on schedule isn't how federal megaprojects work. FHWA does not require a funding package to publish a Draft EIS, a Final EIS, or even to issue a ROD. NEPA evaluates environmental impacts, not financial feasibility. There are dozens of examples of projects that reached FEIS/ROD and then sat for years because funding, cost estimates, or political support collapsed.

Design‑build doesn't change that reality. You can accelerate design after NTP, but you cannot issue NTP without a fully approved funding plan. That's the gating item, not the EIS timeline.

So yes, they're moving through the NEPA paperwork. But that is not evidence of imminent construction, secured funding, or a locked‑in schedule. It's simply the federal process moving forward on paper -- nothing more.

[Rothman]

Eh, we'll see what happens with this one.  Like I said, in my experience, Final EIS/ROD is the equivalent of design approval.  You've made it through scoping and preliminary design at that point and you need it to authorize funding for final design, construction, and it seems we've forgotten in this discussion: ROW acquisition (as opposed to ROW incidentals...Huh...makes me wonder if MDTA is progressing ROW with its own funds, though, which would grease the wheels...).  So, sure, construction can't be authorized just because you have FEIS or ROD, but it's a crucial step.

All I can say is in 99% of the projects I've been aware of, you get to design approval and people are on a DOT's backs to get final design's funding authorized, or final design and construction if design-build.  The only exceptions to that were a small number of projects along the way that were part of some initiative -- "Get to design approval or PS&E and wait for approval from on high to move forward with construction" -- that sort of thing.  And, out of those cases, it's even a small percentage of those that never made it to construction at all...and they may have progressed since my career's evolved over time (in any matter, literally three or four out of hundreds).  Not really talking about major projects in those lost opportunities, either (less than $10m in cost, each -- not anywhere near FEISes, but Cat Exes).  Anyway, short of it is, in my career, I'm not aware of any NY project that developed a full, final EIS and then had it just sit there.

Hm, come to think of it, I should keep this about state-administered projects here.  Locally-administered projects are a whole other ball of wax when it comes to certain sponsors not utilizing awarded federal funds...

Anyway, I'm just saying that I'm sure there are instances countrywide where some agency has gotten to FEIS and had to shelve the project for whatever reason (especially in ye olde days when more money was flowing and DOTs were staffed more robustly...maybe state legislatures got wise to the game of "But we have an FEIS!  Fund it!" over time?), but speaking from my experience, I would find the practice extremely foolish to put a draft EIS out for public review without financial discussions going on behind the scenes to figure out how to get a project to construction in this day and age.  Even an agency sticking their necks out like that risk damaging the morale of their own staff -- engineers/consultant managers tend to think that projects that get to design approval and only to sit on a shelf are wastes of time given how many needs are out there.  Why have limited personnel resources work on a project that's going to sit at design approval, risking needing to expend even more resources if it sits too long due to needing to refresh it due to ever-changing federal requirements and inflation?  Could have been working on those other needed projects rather than spinning one's wheels on the FEIS.

Heck, going back to local projects, it's a constant issue where locally-administered projects are plagued by bad estimates from bad consultants, thus resulting in the sponsors needing to reduce scope and causing them to sweat over not being able to complete scopes as originally announced to the public -- and that's for projects costing the tiniest fraction of the billions the Bay Bridge'll cost.  Can only imagine MDTA has done their best to keep being thrust into a similar situation...

Like I said (but you misquoted), I'm sure they're still figuring things out financially, but the "federal process moving forward on paper" is the project moving forward.  It's not just shuffling pages or paper around, but moving through the engineering phases and process.  MDTA has a preferred alternative in mind, they're presenting it to the public and I'd still be very surprised if they chose to do that just hoping that funding would drop from the sky from my experience with a couple of megaprojects.

It'll be fun to see what happens come November and with any developments that happen due to public interaction between now and then.

In this instance, I'll still side with excitement rather than pessimism and accept that there could be a rude wrench in the works come the end of the year.


(personal opinion emphasized)

[Plutonic Panda]

There are two bridge types that the MDTA is looking at, both with a vertical clearance of 230 feet.

Suspension bridge with the height of the towers at ~400 feet
Cable-stayed bridge with the height of the towers at ~570 feet

I just don't understand the obsession with cable-stayed bridges nowadays. I know trusses are more or less a thing of the past, but I don't understand the specific appeal of cable as the design trend to replace it.

Traditional gusseted trusses are dangerous -- one member fails, the bridge goes down.  Modern gussetless trusses are expensive (NYSDOT is building one at US 11 over Oneida Lake, north of Syracuse; design was to pass the State Historic Preservation Office's muster, per my understanding).

Cable-stayed bridges have simply proven to be safer and cheaper.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Wow, I'm surprised they're building one. I'm glad they are, but do you know what the reason for it was?

[Beltway]

FEIS/ROD is not design approval in the sense that it commits anyone to fund or build anything. It's simply the end of the NEPA decision process. It clears the environmental hurdle; it does not clear the fiscal one.

The real bottleneck here isn't NEPA. It's the $14 to $15 billion funding gap.

Until FHWA signs off on a revised financial plan and authorizes the construction dollars, this project is still a concept with a preferred alternative -- not a funded build. Oops -- this is a toll revenue bond funded facility, there won't be any federal funding.

[Rothman]

There are two bridge types that the MDTA is looking at, both with a vertical clearance of 230 feet.

Suspension bridge with the height of the towers at ~400 feet
Cable-stayed bridge with the height of the towers at ~570 feet

I just don't understand the obsession with cable-stayed bridges nowadays. I know trusses are more or less a thing of the past, but I don't understand the specific appeal of cable as the design trend to replace it.

Traditional gusseted trusses are dangerous -- one member fails, the bridge goes down.  Modern gussetless trusses are expensive (NYSDOT is building one at US 11 over Oneida Lake, north of Syracuse; design was to pass the State Historic Preservation Office's muster, per my understanding).

Cable-stayed bridges have simply proven to be safer and cheaper.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Wow, I'm surprised they're building one. I'm glad they are, but do you know what the reason for it was?

You mean the gussetless truss?  My understanding is that SHPO wanted the new bridge to have a similar character to the old bridge and therefore the gussetless truss was put forward as the alternative.  Heard someone say that SHPO said that they wouldn't go this route again after this approval, but I'm not sure if that's totally true.

[Rothman]

FEIS/ROD is not design approval in the sense that it commits anyone to fund or build anything. It's simply the end of the NEPA decision process. It clears the environmental hurdle; it does not clear the fiscal one.

The real bottleneck here isn't NEPA. It's the $14 to $15 billion funding gap.

Until FHWA signs off on a revised financial plan and authorizes the construction dollars, this project is still a concept with a preferred alternative -- not a funded build. Oops -- this is a toll revenue bond funded facility, there won't be any federal funding.

TIFIA!