Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Bay Bridge from So. Md. to Eastern Shore a Possibility? Under consideration...

  1. #31
    This was talked about years ago and I mean YEARS. Louis Goldstein was Comptroller for the state and proposed a bridge from Calvert across the bay to the eastern shore. If it was not possible then with Goldstein proposing it, won't happen now. There are not to many places on the eastern shore of Calvert to use now. Where Goldstein had proposed was where the gas plant in now.

  2. #32
    The SHA already has many projects listed on their website whose status is "On Hold". Maybe they should continue those or cancel them before taking on a multi billion dollar project. If they spent those dollars on the On Hold projects it would be a better use of transportation dollars.
    Go back and search before you rock back that Pez dispenser of Stupid called a mouth. ~ Pete

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Member Since
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Mechanicsvillle
    Posts
    23
    Don't think I'll be living in St. Mary's County when it's completed. I'll be out of the state within 3-5 years.

  4. #34
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FireBrand's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hell's Half Acre
    Posts
    10,429
    Quote Originally Posted by fettzilla View Post
    don't think i'll be living in st. Mary's county when it's completed. I'll be out of the state within 3-5 years.
    amf
    happier than a puppy with two weenies

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by officeguy View Post
    Pipe dream. Wont ever get built. Just another tool for MDOT buerocrats to route money into the pockets of their consultant friends. After 20 million are spent on the EIS they'll decide that adding a third span to the existing bridge is the only viable option. I could have told them the same for $1 mil.
    Oh, I kind of like the thought of people coming down 235 and heading over the Johnson bridge as a shortcut to the Eastern Shore



    Your signature can not be longer than 100 characters - BS

  6. #36
    What amazes me is how years ago they could do these big engineering feats like the bay bridge, and it was not financially crippling to the state. I mean the Thomas Johnson bridge...it does not look like something that costs a billion dollars to replace. Yet it does, and that stops if from being done. Then the more you wait, the more it blows up.

    In terms of a southern bay crossing, they last studied it in 2005. Part of the issue is, most of the bay bridge traffic comes from Baltimore, so it would be best to build a crossing up there. However all the roads on the northern eastern shore would have to be upgraded.

    When you start talking an SOMD crossing, it comes now to the Bridge is much longer 12 miles, plus needs a series of smaller bridges on the eastern shore...not to mention the not in my backyard, environmental BS.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_C...crossing_study

    I frankly would be happy with a ferry or air taxi service to be honest. How long would a ferry ride across the bay take?

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by ltown81 View Post
    What amazes me is how years ago they could do these big engineering feats like the bay bridge, and it was not financially crippling to the state. I mean the Thomas Johnson bridge...it does not look like something that costs a billion dollars to replace. Yet it does, and that stops if from being done. Then the more you wait, the more it blows up.
    I'm guessing because years ago, you didn't have all the incidental crap outside of the actual design and construction of the bridge. Yes, I realize there had to be some but now-a-days, things get so bogged down in the minutia that people lose sight of the end objective. Just to get a job to bid, there is an extensive amount of money and time spent in environmental items (far more I believe than in years ago). Gov't's now hire mostly outside consultants to consider design options and alternatives. These consultants are often a drain on funding because there is little cost oversight. And when they run out of money, the gov't just funds more. I see this daily. Once you get into a legitimate design, there are all the new environmental restrictions put in place which drive up cost tremendously. Erosion and sediment control on these jobs is outrageous and way over the top. And it's not just the actual application of these elements, it's the paperwork required of it. It's also the sequencing of it. Hell, I've seem jobs take twice as long simply due to the phasing dictated by E&S management. That's a huge cost that has to be covered by contractors and it's an asinine way to manage work.

    You also have requirements now that weren't in place. A large one is minimum MBE (minority business enterprise) participation requirements. This could mean anything from race to gender qualifications (even veteran status, etc.). It's the biggest scam on the books. Gov't says that 30-35% of the contract has to go to an MBE firm. So as a contractor, you're bound to this. This strips away competition and ultimately forces a contractor to use someone it may not normally often to the detriment of the work. To offset this, the contractor must add resources and funding to account for added oversight, added rework and oftentimes blank budget to simply complete certain tasks for them. We're talking huge wasted dollars here. And if these MBE companies were competitive on their own (able to work with competitive prices, provide a quality product), wouldn't they compete without the MBE status? Some do but not most.

    There are a million reasons why things are different now. You'd be surprised HOW and WHERE the money is spent in a project a this magnitude.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Hannibal View Post
    I'm guessing because years ago, you didn't have all the incidental crap outside of the actual design and construction of the bridge. Yes, I realize there had to be some but now-a-days, things get so bogged down in the minutia that people lose sight of the end objective. Just to get a job to bid, there is an extensive amount of money and time spent in environmental items (far more I believe than in years ago). Gov't's now hire mostly outside consultants to consider design options and alternatives. These consultants are often a drain on funding because there is little cost oversight. And when they run out of money, the gov't just funds more. I see this daily. Once you get into a legitimate design, there are all the new environmental restrictions put in place which drive up cost tremendously. Erosion and sediment control on these jobs is outrageous and way over the top. And it's not just the actual application of these elements, it's the paperwork required of it. It's also the sequencing of it. Hell, I've seem jobs take twice as long simply due to the phasing dictated by E&S management. That's a huge cost that has to be covered by contractors and it's an asinine way to manage work.

    You also have requirements now that weren't in place. A large one is minimum MBE (minority business enterprise) participation requirements. This could mean anything from race to gender qualifications (even veteran status, etc.). It's the biggest scam on the books. Gov't says that 30-35% of the contract has to go to an MBE firm. So as a contractor, you're bound to this. This strips away competition and ultimately forces a contractor to use someone it may not normally often to the detriment of the work. To offset this, the contractor must add resources and funding to account for added oversight, added rework and oftentimes blank budget to simply complete certain tasks for them. We're talking huge wasted dollars here. And if these MBE companies were competitive on their own (able to work with competitive prices, provide a quality product), wouldn't they compete without the MBE status? Some do but not most.

    There are a million reasons why things are different now. You'd be surprised HOW and WHERE the money is spent in a project a this magnitude.

    ^^This is interesting and eye-opening info, Hannibal. Thanks.

  9. #39
    Registered User Goldenhawk's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lexington Park
    Posts
    695
    Great info, Hannibal.

    Nobody ever seems to talk about the obvious option: stop expanding roads, and let the traffic force people to adjust their lives to avoid the traffic. Eventually it will stabilize. But if you build more roads, expect more traffic until it is just as congested as before you started. Maybe the legislatures are too enamored with the idea that more traffic means more businesses which means more taxes... without thinking about the fact that the net gain will be zero, because those taxes will be spent on the improvements that must be made to support the population increase. Eventually it just becomes another massive Los Angeles nightmare in a new location.

Members who have read this thread: 132

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |