Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cpzilliacus]

I知 actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.

The opposition seems to be from outside RE/T groups more than anything who have never traveled the bridge.

At least some of them have been touting ferries as an alternative to a new span.  That's a textbook example of a bad-faith alternative by project opponents, as most or all of them did not experience how bad this crossing was prior to 1952, when the two lane structure (now normally the eastbound span) opened to traffic. 

My Dad did, and has told me of waiting hours on summer weekends to cross with one of the ferries (there were two or three running during peak demand times), which  was run by the State Roads Commission (SRC), the direct predecessor to the State Highway Administration.

Ferries are inflexible, labor-intensive and generally cannot be scaled-up to handle peaks in demand (and there are plenty of those peaks in traffic crossing the Chesapeake Bay).

[epzik8]

I知 actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.

I didn't realize how many commuters to Baltimore and Washington are Eastern Shore residents.

[jeffandnicole]

I知 actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.

It doesn't matter what it is, someone will complain about it.

[RoadPelican]

Can almost guarantee that Maryland will end up just simply adding a third span to existing bridge. Best and most logical choice IMO too. No way a bridge would ever go all the way down to Talbot County. Way too far south and close to existing sanctuaries in the bay.

Too much impact on the Anne Arundel County side too. 

If the state wanted a crossing at a new location, it should be between Calvert County on the Western Shore and Dorchester County on the Eastern.  But the distance to cross is long, and there would presumably have to be an all-new approach road on the Dorchester side from the bridge landing to U.S. 50.  On the Calvert side, there would probably need to be improvements on the MD-2, MD-4 and MD-231 corridors. 

So the crossing (either a long overwater crossing or a bridge-tunnel) would be expensive, as would all of the work on the approaches.

I think the best option is the Calvert to Dorchester County crossing.  Baltimore/Annapolis traffic can use the existing Bay Bridge and DC/Northern Virginia/Southern MD can use the new span.

Building another span right next to the existing Bay Bridge is not a good idea.  Let's say the new bridge has four lanes, when the new bridge hits land it has to merge those lanes back into the existing 3 lane alignment of US 50/301.  So your talking about 7 lanes merging into 3, which would do nothing to solve the current traffic problems, plus all the right of way you would have to build up to fit the 4 lanes into a sensible merge point.

Build a 6 lane span from Calvert to Dorchester County, and upgrade Route 16 to a freeway until it hits US 50 just south of Cambridge.  Is it expensive?  Yes, but it solves the bridge traffic problem.

[famartin]

Can almost guarantee that Maryland will end up just simply adding a third span to existing bridge. Best and most logical choice IMO too. No way a bridge would ever go all the way down to Talbot County. Way too far south and close to existing sanctuaries in the bay.

Too much impact on the Anne Arundel County side too. 

If the state wanted a crossing at a new location, it should be between Calvert County on the Western Shore and Dorchester County on the Eastern.  But the distance to cross is long, and there would presumably have to be an all-new approach road on the Dorchester side from the bridge landing to U.S. 50.  On the Calvert side, there would probably need to be improvements on the MD-2, MD-4 and MD-231 corridors. 

So the crossing (either a long overwater crossing or a bridge-tunnel) would be expensive, as would all of the work on the approaches.

I think the best option is the Calvert to Dorchester County crossing.  Baltimore/Annapolis traffic can use the existing Bay Bridge and DC/Northern Virginia/Southern MD can use the new span.

Building another span right next to the existing Bay Bridge is not a good idea.  Let's say the new bridge has four lanes, when the new bridge hits land it has to merge those lanes back into the existing 3 lane alignment of US 50/301.  So your talking about 7 lanes merging into 3, which would do nothing to solve the current traffic problems, plus all the right of way you would have to build up to fit the 4 lanes into a sensible merge point.

Build a 6 lane span from Calvert to Dorchester County, and upgrade Route 16 to a freeway until it hits US 50 just south of Cambridge.  Is it expensive?  Yes, but it solves the bridge traffic problem.

Your argument assumes that 50/301 will never be widened on the approaches. Which is silly, frankly. A new 4 lane span would allow 50/301 to be widened from 3/3 to potentially 6/6 (assuming the current eastbound span becomes reversible, which would seem very realistic given the current reversible lane set-up used for the westbound span). Widening 50/301 would be relatively easy compared to a massive new bridge. Build the bridge first, then the rest of the highway can follow later. Right now the bottleneck is the bridge, where you can never have more than 3 in each direction and never 3 in both directions. A new 4-lane bridge would allow for 4 minimum each way at all times with potential for 6 in one of those directions.

[jeffandnicole]

Can almost guarantee that Maryland will end up just simply adding a third span to existing bridge. Best and most logical choice IMO too. No way a bridge would ever go all the way down to Talbot County. Way too far south and close to existing sanctuaries in the bay.

Too much impact on the Anne Arundel County side too. 

If the state wanted a crossing at a new location, it should be between Calvert County on the Western Shore and Dorchester County on the Eastern.  But the distance to cross is long, and there would presumably have to be an all-new approach road on the Dorchester side from the bridge landing to U.S. 50.  On the Calvert side, there would probably need to be improvements on the MD-2, MD-4 and MD-231 corridors. 

So the crossing (either a long overwater crossing or a bridge-tunnel) would be expensive, as would all of the work on the approaches.

I think the best option is the Calvert to Dorchester County crossing.  Baltimore/Annapolis traffic can use the existing Bay Bridge and DC/Northern Virginia/Southern MD can use the new span.

Building another span right next to the existing Bay Bridge is not a good idea.  Let's say the new bridge has four lanes, when the new bridge hits land it has to merge those lanes back into the existing 3 lane alignment of US 50/301.  So your talking about 7 lanes merging into 3, which would do nothing to solve the current traffic problems, plus all the right of way you would have to build up to fit the 4 lanes into a sensible merge point.

Build a 6 lane span from Calvert to Dorchester County, and upgrade Route 16 to a freeway until it hits US 50 just south of Cambridge.  Is it expensive?  Yes, but it solves the bridge traffic problem.

So you assume one option will have approach roads widened, but another option won't?

[froggie]

I知 actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.

The opposition seems to be from outside RE/T groups more than anything who have never traveled the bridge.

It's not "outside groups" doing the most complaining.  It's locals.  A more correct version of your comment would be "The opposition seems to be from locals who don't need to cross the bridge regularly."

[famartin]

I知 actually surprised there is much opposition at all. It seems like bridge backups are a big hassle for residents on both sides.

The opposition seems to be from outside RE/T groups more than anything who have never traveled the bridge.

It's not "outside groups" doing the most complaining.  It's locals.  A more correct version of your comment would be "The opposition seems to be from locals who don't need to cross the bridge regularly."

I guess the next questions are "don't they want relief from the traffic congestion which inevitably spills over onto local roads?"

Or does the congestion promote people stopping to visit local businesses, thereby making less congestion a bad thing?

[jeffandnicole]

Have people here not learned that locals anywhere often don't want change?

[seicer]

I happened to be along the eastern shore of Virginia for several days and had to drive to Columbia via US 50 and the Bay Bridge on Monday. Traffic was heavy moving westbound but without delays until I was 16 miles from the crossing. It took 2.5 hours with pretty much all side roads blocked off by either barriers or police. The one VMS that actually had a message showing said the optimal crossing time was... 11 PM.

[sprjus4]

I happened to be along the eastern shore of Virginia for several days and had to drive to Columbia via US 50 and the Bay Bridge on Monday. Traffic was heavy moving westbound but without delays until I was 16 miles from the crossing. It took 2.5 hours with pretty much all side roads blocked off by either barriers or police. The one VMS that actually had a message showing said the optimal crossing time was... 11 PM.

To locals, that is considered adequate and no capacity expansion warranted. Cars bad.