Study shows need for expanded Bay Bridge (Baltimore, Annapolis: condos, townhouses)

[bus man]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

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.

Prince Frederick Blvd. is helpful for local access between the library and the senior center (and points in between), but if it's intended to divert thru-traffic from Route 4, I don't see it succeeding in that role. It's just too close (a mere one block to the west) and doesn't offer a speed advantage.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by bus man

Prince Frederick Blvd. is helpful for local access between the library and the senior center (and points in between), but if it's intended to divert thru-traffic from Route 4, I don't see it succeeding in that role. It's just too close (a mere one block to the west) and doesn't offer a speed advantage.

That was the intent, people going to 231 would use it and bypass the Dares Beach and 231 lights. Of course, on a bad day the intersect with 231 can be a cluster with the traffic coming off 4.


The location was the least disruptive (meaning cheapest) to the environmental challenges.


I use it almost all the time since I usually am heading to Benedict.

[MidValleyDad]

On other forums I keep hearing that 'Millenials don't drive as much' and 'Vehicle miles driven has peaked' So why do we need more roads (especially ones that are 20+ years in the future)

Seriously - what about a more northern crossing? Say Bowleys Quarters across to the tip of the neck of land between the Gunpowder & Bush rivers, then to Pooles Island, and on to the Eastern Shore. Near Chestertown you can split the traffic into several different routes to the beach.

No matter what route you take you will have wetlands issues

[bus man]

Originally Posted by MidValleyDad

On other forums I keep hearing that 'Millenials don't drive as much' and 'Vehicle miles driven has peaked' So why do we need more roads (especially ones that are 20+ years in the future)

Seriously - what about a more northern crossing? Say Bowleys Quarters across to the tip of the neck of land between the Gunpowder & Bush rivers, then to Pooles Island, and on to the Eastern Shore. Near Chestertown you can split the traffic into several different routes to the beach.

No matter what route you take you will have wetlands issues

I don't know the traffic patterns exactly, but I assume that Ocean City is the main beach destination, followed by the Delaware beaches. So there's a natural tendency for traffic to flow towards the southeast, from the main population centers (Baltimore, Washington, Southern Maryland) towards those beach areas. Thus, people from Washington and points south would not be as likely to use a Bowleys Quarters crossing as they would the existing one or one from Calvert.


Not to say that there shouldn't be one from Bowleys, but that's one that could probably be handled with a two-lane bridge. Still, it would help disperse the traffic, even if only somewhat.


As for millennials, they might be driving less per capita, but the overall population numbers continue to grow. So I still think we'll need these expanded capacities in the future. Wetlands will always be with us, but I don't think we do the environment any favors if we limit our travel options and thus waste more fuel (due to increasing congestion) and increase pollution.

[seanlax]

Originally Posted by bus man

Wetlands will always be with us, but I don't think we do the environment any favors if we limit our travel options and thus waste more fuel (due to increasing congestion) and increase pollution.

I agree, but I also genuinely believe that cars and roads will be with us far longer than oil. And roads will always be more flexible than rail for transportation (just ride the bus people!) Road-centric transportation planning will continue to be important and might be one of the better infrastructure investment we can be making (assuming that it goes hand-in-hand with denser communities and good urban planning).

That being said, I don't think we need another bridge. I don't think the lower shore will grow quickly enough to warrant it, and I don't think it's worth it just for summer & early fall weekends. Instead, we should really be implementing a smarter and more flexible traffic design on both sides of the bridge. Kinda like what Caltrans is doing on the southern approach to the Golden Gate bridge right now.

[bus man]

Originally Posted by seanlax

That being said, I don't think we need another bridge. I don't think the lower shore will grow quickly enough to warrant it, and I don't think it's worth it just for summer & early fall weekends. Instead, we should really be implementing a smarter and more flexible traffic design on both sides of the bridge. Kinda like what Caltrans is doing on the southern approach to the Golden Gate bridge right now.

I'm not familiar with what's going on with the Golden Gate Bridge; could you elaborate please? Whatever it is that they're doing, I would assume that it's designed to meet the needs of daily commuters, which is a big part of the Golden Gate's usage. Do you think what they're doing would be transferable to the seasonal traffic issues afflicting the Bay Bridge?

[seanlax]

Originally Posted by bus man

I'm not familiar with what's going on with the Golden Gate Bridge; could you elaborate please? Whatever it is that they're doing, I would assume that it's designed to meet the needs of daily commuters, which is a big part of the Golden Gate's usage. Do you think what they're doing would be transferable to the seasonal traffic issues afflicting the Bay Bridge?

It's part urban renewal stuff, but it's also part traffic flow improvements. Getting rid of heavy weave areas, less conflict points, spreading out conflict points, more sweeping curves etc. It was also structurally deficient.

The Bay Bridge approach on either side, with exception to the Rowe Blvd exit and the 301/50 split, is designed as if everyone could potentially go everywhere, whereas the reality is that most of the traffic problems are due getting over the bridge or off it.

In short, the bridge itself is not the source of congestion. I'd argue it is the surrounding infrastructure. I'm probably not the same caliber transportation planner that MTA has, so maybe I'm just dead wrong.

[bus man]

Originally Posted by seanlax

It's part urban renewal stuff, but it's also part traffic flow improvements. Getting rid of heavy weave areas, less conflict points, spreading out conflict points, more sweeping curves etc. It was also structurally deficient.

The Bay Bridge approach on either side, with exception to the Rowe Blvd exit and the 301/50 split, is designed as if everyone could potentially go everywhere, whereas the reality is that most of the traffic problems are due getting over the bridge or off it.

In short, the bridge itself is not the source of congestion. I'd argue it is the surrounding infrastructure. I'm probably not the same caliber transportation planner that MTA has, so maybe I'm just dead wrong.

You are correct that the design of U.S. 50 on either side of the bridge is not optimal. The main problem is very short acceleration and deceleration ramps at most of the exits (with a few exceptions, such as MD 8 in Stevensville) and the fact that the on-offs are just so close together that you've got lots of weaving going on. If the entire road from Annapolis to Queenstown were rebuilt to interstate standards, it would undoubtedly help.

But I do think that the ultimate problem is, as I mentioned in a previous post, that you've got 6 eastbound lanes on the main approach roads (U.S. 50, U.S. 301, and I-97) being funneled down to 2 lanes at the bridge; and likewise 5 westbound lanes on the main approach roads (U.S. 50, U.S. 301, and MD 404) being funneled down to 3 lanes.

[seanlax]

Originally Posted by bus man

But I do think that the ultimate problem is, as I mentioned in a previous post, that you've got 6 eastbound lanes on the main approach roads (U.S. 50, U.S. 301, and I-97) being funneled down to 2 lanes at the bridge; and likewise 5 westbound lanes on the main approach roads (U.S. 50, U.S. 301, and MD 404) being funneled down to 3 lanes.

You are absolutely correct. I just think the management of those lanes, with consideration of through vs local traffic, could be managed far better on the approaches, and the result will be a less congested span. We shall see.

[North Beach Person]

Back to wetlands for a minute, then you guys can continue with traffic flow patterns.


Yes, wetlands will always be there. What has changed is how you deal with them, the cost has skyrocketed.


An example from here.


We had a property owner who owned around 5 acres bordered on 3 sides by tidal wetlands. The original plan was to put in around 60 apartments.


By the time the shouting was over they'd spent $500K in engineering and had approval for 2 very small houses on the parcel. That was without turning a shovel of dirt.


They sold it to the Town (along with 40 acres or so of the wetlands they owned and a lot they had that somehow was in the middle of the Town's Public Works yard) for $200K.