Print

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

[cpzilliacus]

Maryland Transportation Authority press release: FHWA SIGNS OFF ON NICE BRIDGE PLANNING STUDY

Selected Alternative Includes New Four Lane Bridge with Bike/Ped Path; Planning Phase of Nice Bridge Improvement Project Now Complete

The MD Transportation Authority (MDTA) has completed a six-year study to select an alternative to eventually replace the 72-year-old, two-lane Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge (US 301), which connects Charles County, Md., and King George County, Va., across the Potomac River.

The alternative selected (Modified Alternate 7) consists of a new four-lane bridge built parallel to and north of the existing bridge, with a two-way bicycle/pedestrian path along the south side, and removal of the existing bridge.  A designated path on each shore would guide bikers and pedestrians to the appropriate outside shoulder along the US 301 approach roadway.  Inclusion of a bike/ped path reflects public comments and recently enacted State legislation.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Would the replacement bridge's design be similar to the old one's?

[cpzilliacus]

Would the replacement bridge's design be similar to the old one's?

I don't think that has been decided yet, though I think that the probability of a cable-stayed structure is pretty high.

The EIS documents are online here: http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/Nicebridge/nice_index.html

[WillWeaverRVA]

Would the replacement bridge's design be similar to the old one's?

I don't think that has been decided yet, though I think that the probability of a cable-stayed structure is pretty high.

The EIS documents are online here: www.mdta.maryland.gov/Nicebridge/

Thanks. I find it funny that the maps in the study use Maryland shields for Virginia routes.

[NJRoadfan]

Were be nice (ha) if this planning included some upgrades along the US-301 corridor to make it a more viable bypass of the DC area. I-95 isn't getting any easier to drive between Richmond and the Beltway.

[Takumi]

I got a 404 error with that link.

[cpzilliacus]

Would the replacement bridge's design be similar to the old one's?

I don't think that has been decided yet, though I think that the probability of a cable-stayed structure is pretty high.

The EIS documents are online here: www.mdta.maryland.gov/Nicebridge/

Thanks. I find it funny that the maps in the study use Maryland shields for Virginia routes.

Good point.  That is annoying, isn't it? 

Especially when the MdTA's sister agency, SHA, knows how to do Virginia  shields (primary and secondary systems, too), on the approaches to the Wilson Bridge.

[cpzilliacus]

I got a 404 error with that link.

Try now.  I redid the URL.  Should work.

[cpzilliacus]

Were be nice (ha) if this planning included some upgrades along the US-301 corridor to make it a more viable bypass of the DC area. I-95 isn't getting any easier to drive between Richmond and the Beltway.

Maryland is taking an incrementalist approach (so I understand) to upgrading U.S. 301 between the Gov. Nice Bridge and U.S. 50 at Bowie.

There's no money in the till for a project to replace all of the at-grade intersections with grade separated interchanges (though that would be nice).

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: New Nice Bridge MD-VA moves forward

[froggie]

There's no money in the till for a project to replace all of the at-grade intersections with grade separated interchanges (though that would be nice).

Given the amount of private access along the roadway on both sides of the Potomac, this would be a *VERY* expensive undertaking.

[cpzilliacus]

There's no money in the till for a project to replace all of the at-grade intersections with grade separated interchanges (though that would be nice).

Given the amount of private access along the roadway on both sides of the Potomac, this would be a *VERY* expensive undertaking.

Adam, absolutely correct.

And made even worse in Maryland, where there is private development in the median of U.S. 301 in Prince George's County (though that did not stop Maryland from building I-97 through Gambrills, where there was much development in the median of the road that preceded it, Md. 3).

[1995hoo]

Would the replacement bridge's design be similar to the old one's?

I don't think that has been decided yet, though I think that the probability of a cable-stayed structure is pretty high.

The EIS documents are online here: www.mdta.maryland.gov/Nicebridge/

Thanks. I find it funny that the maps in the study use Maryland shields for Virginia routes.

Good point.  That is annoying, isn't it? 

Especially when the MdTA's sister agency, SHA, knows how to do Virginia  shields (primary and secondary systems, too), on the approaches to the Wilson Bridge.

I've always wondered, how do those sorts of things actually work? I don't know anything about how they manufacture the signs, but the shields appear to be stuck onto the sheet metal. So I've always wondered whether Maryland actually manufactures the shield or whether they simply get one from Virginia's sign shop.

There's no money in the till for a project to replace all of the at-grade intersections with grade separated interchanges (though that would be nice).

Given the amount of private access along the roadway on both sides of the Potomac, this would be a *VERY* expensive undertaking.

In the case of the portion of the road running through the Waldorf area, it might well be so expensive that it might (I emphasize "might") be more cost-effective to bypass the area, which of course would prompt another round of battles both because of the people along the bypass routing opposing it and the businesses in Waldorf not wanting to be taken off the main road.

[cpzilliacus]

Would the replacement bridge's design be similar to the old one's?

I don't think that has been decided yet, though I think that the probability of a cable-stayed structure is pretty high.

The EIS documents are online here: www.mdta.maryland.gov/Nicebridge/

Thanks. I find it funny that the maps in the study use Maryland shields for Virginia routes.

Good point.  That is annoying, isn't it? 

Especially when the MdTA's sister agency, SHA, knows how to do Virginia  shields (primary and secondary systems, too), on the approaches to the Wilson Bridge.

I've always wondered, how do those sorts of things actually work? I don't know anything about how they manufacture the signs, but the shields appear to be stuck onto the sheet metal. So I've always wondered whether Maryland actually manufactures the shield or whether they simply get one from Virginia's sign shop.

I don't know.  The Virginia shields on Maryland's signs approaching the WWB are so spot-on authentic looking, maybe they did come from VDOT's sign shop?  Or since they were installed as part of the WWB Project, maybe the contractor knew how to correctly make Virginia shields?

In the other direction, the Maryland shields on the Virginia approach to the WWB are also good, except for one minor "problem" - the Md. 5 shield used the blank for three digit route Maryland route numbers, instead of the one for 1- and 2-digits.  But that's not a big deal - I've seen that repeatedly done in Maryland as well (I recently saw a new one on Md. 3 in Anne Arundel County). 

[cpzilliacus]

In the case of the portion of the road running through the Waldorf area, it might well be so expensive that it might (I emphasize "might") be more cost-effective to bypass the area, which of course would prompt another round of battles both because of the people along the bypass routing opposing it and the businesses in Waldorf not wanting to be taken off the main road.

It has been discussed and studied. 

The Smart Growth industry has repeatedly tried to stir up opposition to a relocated U.S. 301 in Charles County around Waldorf, but Charles County is not especially fertile ground for such activities - it is about 10 light years away from Montgomery County, Md.

Charles County is Southern Maryland, with an emphasis on South.  If you were to wear a blindfold and not have a GPS unit, and be dropped off in the middle of that county, you might think you were in South  Carolina and not Maryland from the surroundings.

[NJRoadfan]

Given the amount of private access along the roadway on both sides of the Potomac, this would be a *VERY* expensive undertaking.

Would be a great candidate for a toll road in both MD and VA. Thats a topic for another thread though.

[Alps]

Given the amount of private access along the roadway on both sides of the Potomac, this would be a *VERY* expensive undertaking.

Would be a great candidate for a toll road in both MD and VA. Thats a topic for another thread though.

Has such a thing ever been proposed in reality?

[froggie]

No.  Not for that corridor.

[mtantillo]

I've always wondered, how do those sorts of things actually work? I don't know anything about how they manufacture the signs, but the shields appear to be stuck onto the sheet metal. So I've always wondered whether Maryland actually manufactures the shield or whether they simply get one from Virginia's sign shop.

Virginia's sign shop does not manufacture BGSs, those are all contracted out. 

Likely someone from Maryland requested the sign files from someone at VDOT, and thus the designs are correct. 

[tmthyvs]

And made even worse in Maryland, where there is private development in the median of U.S. 301 in Prince George's County (though that did not stop Maryland from building I-97 through Gambrills, where there was much development in the median of the road that preceded it, Md. 3).

Maryland did not build I-97 along Md. 3 as far as Gambrills. The development is still in the median of Md. 3 in Gambrills, especially between Md 175 and Waugh Chapel Road and between Johns Hopkins Road and Md 424.

[cpzilliacus]

And made even worse in Maryland, where there is private development in the median of U.S. 301 in Prince George's County (though that did not stop Maryland from building I-97 through Gambrills, where there was much development in the median of the road that preceded it, Md. 3).

Maryland did not build I-97 along Md. 3 as far as Gambrills. The development is still in the median of Md. 3 in Gambrills, especially between Md 175 and Waugh Chapel Road and between Johns Hopkins Road and Md 424.

Yes it did.  The  present  northbound lanes of I-97 were once the southbound lanes of Md. 3 - between Md. 32 and Md. 3 Business.

[bsmart]

I wish they would continue I-97 all the way down past the Nice Bridge and ON TO RICHMOND! ( Good reuse of the old Civil War battle cry :-))  It would almost legitimize the use of the I-97 designation

[cpzilliacus]

Given the amount of private access along the roadway on both sides of the Potomac, this would be a *VERY* expensive undertaking.

Would be a great candidate for a toll road in both MD and VA. Thats a topic for another thread though.

Has such a thing ever been proposed in reality?

Sorry for the long delay - I suppose I missed your question when  you posted it back in December.

The answer is yes, at least in part (but apparently not as a toll road).

Scott Kozel has documented the Washington Bypass studies (Eastern, relevant to this thread, and Western) of the late 1980's and early 1990's (killed mostly because of well-organized opposition in Maryland).

Details on Scott's Roads to the Future site here.

[tmthyvs]

And made even worse in Maryland, where there is private development in the median of U.S. 301 in Prince George's County (though that did not stop Maryland from building I-97 through Gambrills, where there was much development in the median of the road that preceded it, Md. 3).

Maryland did not build I-97 along Md. 3 as far as Gambrills. The development is still in the median of Md. 3 in Gambrills, especially between Md 175 and Waugh Chapel Road and between Johns Hopkins Road and Md 424.

Yes it did.  The  present  northbound lanes of I-97 were once the southbound lanes of Md. 3 - between Md. 32 and Md. 3 Business.

Nitpicking, but that would be Millersville, hence my confusion. Is the present Veterans Highway (MD 178) then roughly the former northbound lanes of MD 3 in that stretch, with the businesses there formerly being in the median? Were many businesses overrun by I-97? The difficulty I see with the same strategy farther south would be the proliferation of businesses not only in the median but also on both sides of MD 3 and US 301.

[cpzilliacus]

Nitpicking, but that would be Millersville, hence my confusion. Is the present Veterans Highway (MD 178) then roughly the former northbound lanes of MD 3 in that stretch, with the businesses there formerly being in the median? Were many businesses overrun by I-97? The difficulty I see with the same strategy farther south would be the proliferation of businesses not only in the median but also on both sides of MD 3 and US 301.

Millersville is fine with me.

You are correct that there has been a lot of commercial development along Md. 3 since I-97 was completed.  Including at least two massive retail centers on the left going north between Md 424 and Waugh Chapel Road.