Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A study conducted for the Maryland Transportation Authority shows that there is need for expanded capacity across the Bay. This could be met by adding a new span, widening an existing span, creating an entirely new bridge, and/or building a new bridge in a different location.
The problem, of course, is that the Bay Bridge is the narrow point of two funnels, coming from the east and the west. From the west (Baltimore and Washington), you've got the four eastbound lanes of U.S. 50 and the two lanes of I-97 funneling into three lanes of U.S. 50 east of Annapolis, and then just two lanes across the bridge. From the Eastern Shore, you've got the two westbound lanes of U.S. 50 and the one lane of MD 404 funneling into two lanes at Wye Mills; then the two lanes of U.S. 50 and the two lanes of U.S. 301 funneling into the three lanes of U.S. 50 across Kent Island and the bridge.
In other words, you've got a total of 11 lanes (6 eastbound and 5 westbound) funneling into a progressively narrower bottleneck, culminating in just 5 lanes, in total, across the bay.
Probably the cheapest solution would be to build a new three-lane span, built to the south of the existing two. This new span would carry eastbound traffic. The existing two-lane eastbound span would become a reversible-lane span, with the direction being shifted according to the times of peak demand. In order for this to work, U.S. 50 would need to be widened to the same configuration, i.e. three lanes of traffic in each direction plus two reversible lanes. This would need to be done at least between I-97 at Parole and the U.S. 301 split at Queenstown. Ideally, another lane would be added to U.S. 50 in each direction from the split down to the MD 404 split at Wye Mills.
However, there's a problem that may or may not have been considered by the study (the article didn't say), and that is, the existing bridges are too low for some of the big new ships coming into service. Consider cruise ships. Royal Caribbean has 7 different classes of ship, but only the 3 oldest and smallest can fit under the Bay Bridge. The trend has been to build bigger and bigger ships. So when the ships of the three smallest classes are retired, what then? Does Baltimore lose the millions of dollars of economic activity because she ships can't come, because they can't fit under the bridge? Maybe it would be better to replace the bridges with tunnels, or else an eight-lane bridge built higher up.
I also think that, instead of funneling all cross-bay traffic into one choke point, another bridge (or tunnel) should be built between Calvert and Dorchester counties. I realize that some residents will not want the increased traffic and development that this would bring; but I also believe that the needs of the state as a whole should outweigh the desires of a small segment of the population.
I also think that, instead of funneling all cross-bay traffic into one choke point, another bridge (or tunnel) should be built between Calvert and Dorchester counties. I realize that some residents will not want the increased traffic and development that this would bring; but I also believe that the needs of the state as a whole should outweigh the desires of a small segment of the population.
What are your thoughts?
If the people in power have a chance to invest in property on the Eastern Shore prior to making the decision, it will go there. The problem is, the cost to build access roads in this area on both sides of the bay would make this a very expensive option.
If a third span were built in the existing Rt50 area, there would be an increase of traffic in the area as time goes on, but it still would not be as much traffic as there is on any part of I95 every day right now. It would be much cheaper to widen the Rt50 corridor than to create a new corridor elsewhere.
The naysayers will say, "If you build it they will come", meaning it would draw more traffic to the area, but if you don't build it, there will still be more traffic as the population increases anyway. If you don't plan for it, it will be bad either way.
However, there's a problem that may or may not have been considered by the study (the article didn't say), and that is, the existing bridges are too low for some of the big new ships coming into service. Consider cruise ships. Royal Caribbean has 7 different classes of ship, but only the 3 oldest and smallest can fit under the Bay Bridge. The trend has been to build bigger and bigger ships. So when the ships of the three smallest classes are retired, what then? Does Baltimore lose the millions of dollars of economic activity because she ships can't come, because they can't fit under the bridge? Maybe it would be better to replace the bridges with tunnels, or else an eight-lane bridge built higher up.
What are your thoughts?
I am not a bridge engineer, but I would think that once a third span is built, the existing bridges could be raised a little higher in the main channel area to allow for the larger ships at a much more affordable cost than building tunnels. On the other hand, maybe it would be cheaper to build new terminals somewhere south of the bridge, where there is rail access, just to accommodate the larger ships.
As long as the new Panamax freighters can fit under the bridges, I don't think that they're going to worry about the cruise ships' clearance, or lack thereof.
On the other hand, maybe it would be cheaper to build new terminals somewhere south of the bridge, where there is rail access, just to accommodate the larger ships.
Just a quick point, there aren't really any other locations, geographically speaking, that are as advantageous as Baltimore as a port. Hence why it has become such an important one for the mid-atlantic. The harbors (not the inner harbor, the real ship harbors) are also heavily and dependably dredged. DC perhaps, but between security issues, the Nice bridge, and massive sediment issues, it would be prohibitively expensive, not to mention the already clogged roads around DC making an increase in freight capacity a logistical nightmare. At least south & SE Baltimore highways are fairly accessible and hardly congested.
There isn't much room for expansion in Philly, so its not like they could accept an increase in cargo.
Basically, the port of Baltimore is critical to the region and more so to the shipping industry, and is certainly more important than people coming to the beach 4 months out of the year. That's coming from a homer, no less.
I am not a bridge engineer, but I would think that once a third span is built, the existing bridges could be raised a little higher in the main channel area to allow for the larger ships at a much more affordable cost than building tunnels. On the other hand, maybe it would be cheaper to build new terminals somewhere south of the bridge, where there is rail access, just to accommodate the larger ships.
It is technically feasible to raise the road decks of bridges; they're doing it to the Bayonne Bridge (in New Jersey) right now. But it's absurdly expensive; and given the overall life-cycle costs, it may actually be cheaper to replace the Bay Bridge spans than raise them.
Relocating the cruise terminal to about 1 mile south of Sandy Point State Park would solve the issue as far as cruise ships go. But there's still the cargo ships heading for the Port of Baltimore to consider. The port as a whole is a huge economic engine for the entire State of Maryland, so I would hope that the potential impacts to the port due to bridge clearance issues would be part of any discussion as to what to do with the Bay Bridge.
If a Calvert-Dorchester crossing is off the table, and all our eggs must be put into the Sandy Point-Kent Island crossing, I would say demolish the existing bridges and build two news ones in their place, each of which would have a higher clearance and consist of 5 lanes: 3 general-purpose and 2 for E-Z Pass holders. And also, U.S. 50 would have to be upgraded to a 10-lane freeway (6 general purpose and 4 toll) between I-97 and the 50/301 split in Queenstown. And while we're spending money that we don't have, we ought to add a lane to I-97 between MD 32/MD 3 and U.S. 50, and also add a lane to U.S. 50 between the 301 split and MD 404.
Heck, it might be cheaper to build a 4-lane bridge between Calvert and Dorchester, plus a four-lane highway from Salisbury to Lusby (or maybe even across the Patuxent River to Charlotte Hall) than it would to build those huge new bridges at Kent Island.
As long as the new Panamax freighters can fit under the bridges, I don't think that they're going to worry about the cruise ships' clearance, or lack thereof.
Standard clearance for newly constructed bridges is at about 220 feet. That is the standard held by most shipping routes. The Golden Gate is 220 and the Verrazano is 228.
The bay bridge has a clearance of 186. The DE Memorial is 174. Both need retrofits in my opinion.
It is technically feasible to raise the road decks of bridges; they're doing it to the Bayonne Bridge (in New Jersey) right now. But it's absurdly expensive; and given the overall life-cycle costs, it may actually be cheaper to replace the Bay Bridge spans than raise them.
Relocating the cruise terminal to about 1 mile south of Sandy Point State Park would solve the issue as far as cruise ships go. But there's still the cargo ships heading for the Port of Baltimore to consider. The port as a whole is a huge economic engine for the entire State of Maryland, so I would hope that the potential impacts to the port due to bridge clearance issues would be part of any discussion as to what to do with the Bay Bridge.
If a Calvert-Dorchester crossing is off the table, and all our eggs must be put into the Sandy Point-Kent Island crossing, I would say demolish the existing bridges and build two news ones in their place, each of which would have a higher clearance and consist of 5 lanes: 3 general-purpose and 2 for E-Z Pass holders. And also, U.S. 50 would have to be upgraded to a 10-lane freeway (6 general purpose and 4 toll) between I-97 and the 50/301 split in Queenstown. And while we're spending money that we don't have, we ought to add a lane to I-97 between MD 32/MD 3 and U.S. 50, and also add a lane to U.S. 50 between the 301 split and MD 404.
Heck, it might be cheaper to build a 4-lane bridge between Calvert and Dorchester, plus a four-lane highway from Salisbury to Lusby (or maybe even across the Patuxent River to Charlotte Hall) than it would to build those huge new bridges at Kent Island.
You're not taking into account the cost to upgrade RTE 4. As I mentioned in another thread you have wetlands on either side of the current road from Upper Marlboro to Solomon's. They go right up to the current right of way from Prince Frederick south.
You also don't take into account that every single signaled intersection on that road in Calvert County currently has a grade of D or F. This is after a multi-year project to upgrade them and widen the road going by/through Prince Frederick and with the addition of both an eastern and western bypass.
Plus, as I mentioned, the land in Dorchester that was to be used to base the bridge on that end has disappeared. The current land over there is also a wetlands nightmare.
In Calvert you also have the issue of CCNP and the soon to be opened Dominion Gas Terminal.
Like it or not, the only place a third span is even marginally feasible is where the current ones are now.
I'm almost 62. If the work started today I likely wouldn't see it completed. The last time line I saw, which was 10 or so years ago, was a 20 to 30 year project to build a 3rd span.
I do recall your other post, North Beach Person. That's why I think the better bet would be to have the hypothetical new four-lane Calvert-Dorchester highway extend west across the Patuxent (via a new bridge) to Route 5 somewhere around Charlotte Hall, and upgrade that latter road to freeway standards from there north to Brandywine and up to the Beltway. (Incidentally, I can't thnk of even one bypass around Prince Frederick, much less two. Surely you're not thinking of Prince Frederick Blvd., are you?)
As for the wetlands of Dorchester County, I don't have an answer for that. But they built Route 18 in the same general area as my hypothetical highway, so it must be possible.
I never said that a new Calvert-Dorchester crossing would be cheap or easy. But as I see it, we either need to expand the cross-bay capacity somehow (and I don't think it's a good idea to put all our eggs into the Sandy Point-Kent Island basket) or else resign ourselves to ever-worsening congestion, and the economic and environmental costs that go along with it.
I do recall your other post, North Beach Person. That's why I think the better bet would be to have the hypothetical new four-lane Calvert-Dorchester highway extend west across the Patuxent (via a new bridge) to Route 5 somewhere around Charlotte Hall, and upgrade that latter road to freeway standards from there north to Brandywine and up to the Beltway. (Incidentally, I can't thnk of even one bypass around Prince Frederick, much less two. Surely you're not thinking of Prince Frederick Blvd., are you?)
As for the wetlands of Dorchester County, I don't have an answer for that. But they built Route 18 in the same general area as my hypothetical highway, so it must be possible.
I never said that a new Calvert-Dorchester crossing would be cheap or easy. But as I see it, we either need to expand the cross-bay capacity somehow (and I don't think it's a good idea to put all our eggs into the Sandy Point-Kent Island basket) or else resign ourselves to ever-worsening congestion, and the economic and environmental costs that go along with it.
That's the western one. Starts by the Chevy/Toyota dealer and dumps out on 231 behind the Ford dealer. The eastern one isn't finished yet. It goes behind Fox Run and dumps onto Dares Beach.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
