Maryland Bay Bridge editorial draws comment - some back & forth

The Maryland Bay Bridge editorial (link here) has generated some responses:

LETTER: I'm in complete agreement that the present bridges are a travesty and have been for decades. The provide, at best, a level of service barely acceptable if they were free. I find the present bridges scary to use even in the best of conditions, so I don't.

I disagree with you only in a matter of degree: Since the present approach roads are 3+3, they'll likely need to become 4+4 during the life of a replacement bridge. Therefore the replacement bridges should be designed to be able to be 5+5. High bridges need to be 1 more lane in width than approach roads in order to flow the same amount of traffic owing to the grade - they essentially need a climbing lane for trucks and underpowered RVs. That and there is something about being on a bridge that causes some drivers to slow.

I agree that twin spans would offer best solution in terms of redundancy - a single 5 lane span with generous shoulders could likely be operated as a 4 + 2 in favor of the heavy direction via movable barriers.

Failing a twin span solution, a single 8 lane span with a movable barrier able to directionally reallocate 2 lanes could work, given the highly directional nature of peak traffic flows - run it as a 5 + 3 or 3+ 5, depending on day / time. That scenario might need 9 lane widths to provide an inside shoulder in the heavy direction.

I also completely agree that the traffic would bear significantly greater tolls - highly affluent and no viable alternative within hours. I'll bet an elasticity analysis would show present tolls could double or triple without significant change in traffic. There would be the usual whining, but that would be muted if one could reasonably count on a safe 70 mph trip across the bay. (They could post the bridge at 50, 55, 60, or 65 or whatever but most of us would go 70 or so on such a modern span)

The bay bridges are quite an anomaly in that most of the rest of Maryland's roads are top-notch, especially when compared with the rest of the northeast.

If the public tolling agency is too corrupt, risk-averse, incompetent or patronage-laden to take this on, then yes, a P3 solution is justified.

Curt Kinder, Florida

Response: Thanks.

Question: It was an interesting read. The only issue I have is that you didn't address the other lurking question--do you build a new toll-bond-funded bridge in the same spot? It seems like you either build it further south (Calvert County over to near Salisbury) or further north.

Bryan Shuy

Response: I'm advocating replacement of the existing old spans at Annapolis and Kent Island with modern structures right alongside or in their place.

Moving the bridge more than a hundred feet or so away gets you into huge controversy and cost over relocation of the approach roads on either side.

There probably is a case for another bridge on a more direct line between Washington DC and Salisbury. But that is about 25 miles to the south and it would be hugely controversial and very difficult to gain acceptable rights of way between the Beltway and the Bay and between the eastern shore and US50 at Cambridge MD.

That could be the subject of study and efforts to see if there are acceptable approach routes.

You would still need a bridge at Annapolis/Kent Island and so the modernization will be needed. It could be done within a 5 to 10 year time frame.

It would be foolish in my view to put off modernization of the existing bridge with new spans on the grounds that maybe, at some future time, there could also be a bridge 20 or 30 miles to the south.

Shuy: I figure within 30 years there will be another crossing because westward expansion of DC suburbs is starting to surpass even Jefferson County WV so eastern expansion makes sense. More recently I've heard chatter in the halls of Annapolis about a northern crossing, but I really think that isn't feasible because a bridge north of baltimore saves 45 minutes tops and a bridge south of Baltimore is too close to Annapolis/Kent Island.

Response: A bridge to the north would mostly serve Baltimore metro area and Howard Co.

Trouble is it wouldn't plug into any existing highways on the eastern shore so you'd have to build a highway right across the Eastern Shore/Delmarva peninsula, much of it in Delaware, to get to the coast. Delaware would have to embrace the idea. It would need to be as much a Delaware project as a Maryland project, complicating the politics.

Also the people with the money to pay high tolls for a trip to the ocean are mostly in Northern VA, Montgomery Co MD, Charles Co, St Marys Co MD, NW DC etc so you wouldn't get their toll money on a northern crossing.

Now if you had ten years of good government and low taxes in Baltimore city you might get growth of population and incomes in Baltimore, then in the volume of trips to justify a northern crossing, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

Actually the land route up I-95 and down DE-1 from Baltimore is pretty horrible because of conditions on 95 in DE, and then south of Dover to Ocean City etc. Even if you fix the roads it's a lot longer.

These are huge bridges too.

A southern bridge on the DC-Salisbury line is about 13 miles (21km) over water - about three times as long as the Bay Bridge bridge at Annapolis. Further south still, near Calvert Cliffs, the Bay narrows a bit and a bridge would be 6 miles (10km), still a good bit longer than at Annapolis. But how do you get a connecting highway between the Beltway (I-495) and the shore of the Bay? You'd probably have to tunnel, a long tunnel, for it to be acceptable.

A northern bridge on the Baltimore-Dover DE axis at Fort Howard near I-695 is 8.6 miles (13.8km), almost twice the length of the Annapolis Bridge. It has a beautiful connection to I-695 (Baltimore Beltway) but nothing on the eastern shore.

You can go further north up I-95 to Joppa, dodge shells on a route through Aberdeen Proving Ground. There the Bay is quite narrow 3.3 miles (5.3km) but you're losing directness of route to the coast. And you've got no connections on the eastern shore either. And the Pentagon may not want to provide a route. Lots of obstacles besides the bridge itself.

It's fun speculating about new bridges and it would be interesting to see them studied, perhaps with a view to reserving right of way. But the challenges of them are huge. By comparison building a modern bridge in place of the obsolete spans at Annapolis is a piece of cake.

- You've got the established approach highways (US50, US301) on either side, I-97 to Baltimore, BWI

- It is pretty well located to serve both the Baltimore and the Washington DC metro areas

- People are used to a big bridge there, so it should be no big deal if it has slightly larger capacity but just 3+3 modern lanes with breakdown shoulders would be a huge improvement over the existing clunk 2+3 lanes, no shoulder, especially if there were some peak/off-peak toll rate differentials

- Modernization can be staged and you get big benefits from just one new span

[NOTE: Some of this reflects a back and forth at Richard W C Falknor's Blue Ridge Forum website: http://blueridgeforum.com/]

TOLLROADSnews 2008-08-31