MTA to release "narrowed down" list of locations for third bridge to eastern shore soon (Who will be the lucky winner?)

[zar]

https://marylandreporter.com/2019/06/06/opponents-of-new-bay-bridge-pushing-for-alternatives/

Here is the list of potential sites that were previously leaked

https://outline.com/6PzbHp

According to the article only the eastern shore counties have the power to veto the plan, so whatever county on the eastern shore has the most to gain will allow the MTA to ramrod it through whatever town is most convenient. Looking at the map of proposed sites, i'm going to go with the more southern counties of the ES and least spanning distance across. If I had to bet it looks like our calvert friends will be our lucky winners. Solomons is pretty uppity like Annapolis, it would only be fitting if they had similar bridge and congestion.

Alternatively It would make a lot of sense to just flatten the park and turn into one giant interstate for bridge and base traffic, if they could somehow figure out a way to transport all the mobile homes, residents, and project housing of LP to crisfield. Talk about killing two birds with one stone, unfortunately that would require an incredibly long bridge and doesn't seem too feasible

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Well, think about it. 'Ol Louey Goldstein's heirs now own the land on both sides of the bay where a bridge might go.'Ol Louey bought land decades ago for the very purpose. Isn't that neat? Now, "God bless y'all real good".

 

[Clem72]

If I may ...

Well, think about it. 'Ol Louey Goldstein's heirs now own the land on both sides of the bay where a bridge might go.'Ol Louey bought land decades ago for the very purpose. Isn't that neat? Now, "God bless y'all real good".

If he bought land on the shore decades ago it's probably worth a lot more now as housing than what he would receive if the state purchased it for a bridge (which would by definition lower property values in that area).

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

If he bought land on the shore decades ago it's probably worth a lot more now as housing than what he would receive if the state purchased it for a bridge (which would by definition lower property values in that area).

Well, now that is possible. However, he most likely acquired enough land to have a gas station or two, maybe even a convenience store, or two, at or near the foot of the bridge. Besides, do you really think Calvert's, powers that be, would allow any housing to be built in the Bay Critical Area zone? And if they did, it wouldn't be "work force housing" that's for sure. It would be one house per 10-20 acres. So I'm betting the money got by imminent domain taking, or a simple sale to the State, will be far superior to what might be commanded on the open market.

 

[Hannibal]

Hmmm. Living in PF and driving daily to Baltimore (a long enough drive as it is), I am not sure I could survive dealing with the "Bay Bridge traffic" aspect being added to that commute as I come into PF.

 

[BernieP]

Hmmm. Living in PF and driving daily to Baltimore (a long enough drive as it is), I am not sure I could survive dealing with the "Bay Bridge traffic" aspect being added to that commute as I come into PF.

I think the part that doesn't get discussed, is more or less buried in plain sight, is infrastructure improvements which would include not only roads, but possibly parking and other transit services.

Not sure if they have done soil and other hydraulic testing to see if any of these proposed sites could support the structures needed for the bridge.

In the mean time the bridge over the lower Patuxent River is over crowded and aging. A replacement / expansion & renovation of the existing bridge isn't even in MDOT plans let alone funded. Seems to me this is the type of infrastructure that would be needed and studies of a third Bay Crossing is putting the cart in front of the horse.

 

[ReadingTheNews]

...In the mean time the bridge over the lower Patuxent River is over crowded and aging. A replacement / expansion & renovation of the existing bridge isn't even in MDOT plans let alone funded. Seems to me this is the type of infrastructure that would be needed and studies of a third Bay Crossing is putting the cart in front of the horse.

^^This^^
x1,000,000

And to the tard OP: Solomons already has 'similar-enough bridge and congestion'.

 

[stgislander]

There'll be flying cars before that bridge gets built.

 

[Gilligan]

There'll be flying cars before that bridge gets built.

Like in Dukes of Hazard...big ski-jump ramps on each shore?

 

[stgislander]

Like in Dukes of Hazard...big ski-jump ramps on each shore?

Sure. Pyrobot will be the first in line.

 

[BernieP]

^^This^^
x1,000,000

And to the tard OP: Solomons already has 'similar-enough bridge and congestion'.

I also don't understand the "hate" for Solomons, first, the little patch of land isn't on the freaking bay, so why would anyone want to locate a bridge there. Plus, widen route 2 and you might as well depopulate the island, There isn't enough room between the river and the creek.


BTW, how much money do you think doing these dumb ass studies. It does require much brain power to look a map, apply a little common sense and say, FOOLISH

One drive up / down either Calvert and St. Mary's and you see the impact of being on a rather thin peninsula.
One would expect that a highways like 235/5 and Rt 4 would not be so heavily traveled given the population of the two counties - except for the fact they are the only roads in and out of the counties.

 

[ltown81]

Whats funny is pretend that the bay bridge/bay did not exist and it was straight land in that area. There would be no backups. Traffic rolls fine yp to the bridge and after the bridge.

The current bridge has 5 lanes total, which is not a ton, but again...once you get on the actual bridge traffic moves. I really dont remember many times sitting in stop and go traffic on the actual bridge.

One bottleneck I hate is the toll plaza. They expand 3-4 lanes for rt50 to 15 toll lanes. Then once you get through the tolls, you have 15 lanes merging to 2 to cross the bridge, which is an accident waiting to happen. Then traffic backs up through the toll booths merging. I feel like they would be better off having for toll lanes.

I only see the west bound side backed up if there is an accident or a super heavy holiday like labor day.

 

[jazz lady]

The current bridge has 5 lanes total, which is not a ton, but again...once you get on the actual bridge traffic moves. I really dont remember many times sitting in stop and go traffic on the actual bridge.

One bottleneck I hate is the toll plaza. They expand 3-4 lanes for rt50 to 15 toll lanes. Then once you get through the tolls, you have 15 lanes merging to 2 to cross the bridge, which is an accident waiting to happen. Then traffic backs up through the toll booths merging. I feel like they would be better off having for toll lanes.

It does back up, believe me! I went across a couple of weeks ago and got to the toll plaza around 10 am on a Friday. Sailed through that with my EZ Pass, then spent 15 minutes or so on the bridge creeping along as all those toll lanes merged into two. Still better than the last two times where I spent two HOURS on 50 trying to get across.

I only see the west bound side backed up if there is an accident or a super heavy holiday like labor day.

If you try to come back on Sunday late afternoon or evening, it is always backed up. And everyone has traffic alerts going to try to go around backups via the back roads so it becomes utter chaos on 50. I left Easton around 1 and there was an accident around the 50/301 split and people were trying to turn onto 313 and BLOCKED the left lane on westbound 50. How there wasn't a massive pileup because of that, I'll never know.

 

[Goldenhawk]

Here's the problem with building another bridge or more lanes: Traffic will expand to fill the available roads. Don't build more, it will stabilize at some point - when the pain of going across the bridge overrides the need (desire) to do so. If it becomes painful enough, people will pick somewhere else to vacation or to live or to work. We only continue to feed the problem by building more transportation infrastructure.

 

[ltown81]

Barring an accident or a heavy holiday weekend, normally I see smooth cruising between queenstown and the bridge.

It does back up, believe me! I went across a couple of weeks ago and got to the toll plaza around 10 am on a Friday. Sailed through that with my EZ Pass, then spent 15 minutes or so on the bridge creeping along as all those toll lanes merged into two. Still better than the last two times where I spent two HOURS on 50 trying to get across.



If you try to come back on Sunday late afternoon or evening, it is always backed up. And everyone has traffic alerts going to try to go around backups via the back roads so it becomes utter chaos on 50. I left Easton around 1 and there was an accident around the 50/301 split and people were trying to turn onto 313 and BLOCKED the left lane on westbound 50. How there wasn't a massive pileup because of that, I'll never know.

 

[ltown81]

Here's the problem with building another bridge or more lanes: Traffic will expand to fill the available roads. Don't build more, it will stabilize at some point - when the pain of going across the bridge overrides the need (desire) to do so. If it becomes painful enough, people will pick somewhere else to vacation or to live or to work. We only continue to feed the problem by building more transportation infrastructure.

It won't "stabilize". The number of people on the road will grow as population grows. If an electric car cost the same as a gas one, which will happen soon, it is cheaper to use, and driverless cars make it easier to get places. Worst, but not allowing adequate access to the eastern shore you hurt the exonomic prospects of half the state.

Your logic would be like saying..."Oh we have this navy base here that is an economic engine and brings tons of high paying jobs. Don't widen 235 from the two lanes each way it was in 1995. Just leave it as is, and eventually it will stabilize because the base will leave or people won't want to work there"

 

[Goldenhawk]

Your points are correct, but you're missing something: if you make it bigger, it will just make things worse. It's a never-ending cycle. Make the road bigger, more people use it and make decisions based on its larger capacity, and it soon gets gridlocked again. Many studies have proven this fact over and over again.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Your points are correct, but you're missing something: if you make it bigger, it will just make things worse. It's a never-ending cycle. Make the road bigger, more people use it and make decisions based on its larger capacity, and it soon gets gridlocked again. Many studies have proven this fact over and over again.

That reasoning would imply that everyplace has the exact same level of traffic backups. I can assure you that is not the case.

That logic assumes the road is the limiting factor and there is an unlimited number of cars and reasons for them to want to get somewhere.

 

[zar]

Your points are correct, but you're missing something: if you make it bigger, it will just make things worse. It's a never-ending cycle. Make the road bigger, more people use it and make decisions based on its larger capacity, and it soon gets gridlocked again. Many studies have proven this fact over and over again.

Almost irrelevant, it will be rammed down a towns throat and there is nothing they will be able to do about it. When they feel like doing it they will do it and the original bridge only took 3 1/2 years to build in the 1950's, it will certainly be built sooner than later by the sounds of it. The answer to congestion will be "deal with it". I'd expect northern Virginian like traffic throughout the developing southern maryland will become the norm.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Your points are correct, but you're missing something: if you make it bigger, it will just make things worse. It's a never-ending cycle. Make the road bigger, more people use it and make decisions based on its larger capacity, and it soon gets gridlocked again. Many studies have proven this fact over and over again.

Making a bigger road in an area with, say, a daily traffic use of 10,000 cars, and a population of 25,000 will not lead to more use creating gridlock. What does lead to greater use is the building of further housing, (single housing, and especially high density), and commercial business adjacent to a bigger, higher capacity, road. Look a Route 4. A full two lanes south and a full two lanes north, finished in the 70's. (A requirement for the Nuclear Electric Power Generating Plant). Still not really used to full capacity, until heading north and you get past Prince Frederick that is. Same can be said for areas of 235/5. Besides, it matters not what we think, or what we want. Those that stand to profit, and benefit, will win the day.