Bay Bridge from So. Md. to Eastern Shore a Possibility? Under consideration...
- Thread starter Editor
- Start date
It's moving forward smartly. We're involved with the dredging operations in a peripheral way and the schedule has remained constant.
But that aside..the cost of the new Nice Bridge simply pales in comparison to what another bay crossing will cost.
Sorry. This thing has been proposed and stopped so many times over the years that until there is something being built, I'll remain skeptical.
I'm confident it will go ahead because a) the traffic issue has become so acute in recent years that it can longer be ignored and b) the extent of the engineering, surveying and planning never came remotely close to as far as where it is now.
But yeah, it always takes money....and all the money has not been found yet.
gary_webb
Damned glad to meet you
Several years back I met with the lead engineer of the Maryland Bridge Authority during the course of every day business. It had nothing to do with a bay crossing but the subject did come up and he said the state had been studying it for approximately 20 years at that time. The location was to be somewhere around Solomons Island to the vicinity of Cambridge. Of course the NIMBY people in Calvert lost there minds, and as someone has already said "Not in our lifetime".
Probably the same group that lost their minds back when we were involved in supporting some ferry studies that connected similar points.
Goldenhawk
Well-Known Member
There's absolutely no point in linking Somerset/SoMD (crossing the Bay), or for that matter Virginia/St Marys (crossing the Potomac), if the roads from DC down to SoMD are not also upgraded. It's already a rolling parking lot often enough - we can't handle more traffic as it is.
More than a few studies over the years have shown that adding roads doesn't help congestion - the congestion always grows to fill the roads. So all these dreams of reducing congestion don't really help in the long run.
Consider that 235 from the base to Wildewood used to be a rolling parking lot every rush hour. Then they expanded 235 and things were just great... for a while. Now the traffic is pretty much just as bad as it used to be - more cars get thru per hour, but just as long of a rush hour mess as it used to be.
More than a few studies over the years have shown that adding roads doesn't help congestion - the congestion always grows to fill the roads. So all these dreams of reducing congestion don't really help in the long run.
Consider that 235 from the base to Wildewood used to be a rolling parking lot every rush hour. Then they expanded 235 and things were just great... for a while. Now the traffic is pretty much just as bad as it used to be - more cars get thru per hour, but just as long of a rush hour mess as it used to be.
awpitt
Main Streeter
When, you mean the legislature actually voted to take money away from their own pockets.
To people calling the people of Calvert and St. Mary's NIBY for not being interested in a terminal / port or a bridge for the Eastern Shore I would disagree in this case.
For the projects to be viable (be able to raise enough money to pay off bonds and operate, they would need more traffic than lives in the lower parts of St. Mary's and Calvert counties.
That means vehicles traveling south on Rt 5/235 and Rt. 4. Neither road would be suitable for through traffic, not when you can take US 50 instead of hitting dozens of stop lights.
You are also trying to build roads and a bridge in an area with lots of small bodies of water, that would drive up the cost significantly.
Neither project is economically viable and that's why people are not for it.
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.
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.
Rommey
Well-Known Member
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.
FireBrand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
amf
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
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_Chesapeake_Bay_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?
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_Chesapeake_Bay_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?
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.
ReadingTheNews
Active Member
Goldenhawk
Well-Known Member
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.
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.