So......say they do build a new Solomon's Bridge

L

ltown81

Member
What do you want to bet they would make it some form of toll bridge. I can't see a $750 Million to $1 Billion project in an area down here happening any other way.

Say they did...I wonder how that would change the behavior of people down here. How many people would not just run across the Bridge for dinner, or shopping.

Just to be clear...I know nothing about the thinking of whoever makes the decisions. Just looking at the fact that similar bridges like the Nice Brige have such tolls, and in general, I can't see Maryland spending $750 million+ without tolls for a bridge down here.

That being said, odds are, we will all be retired when any of this matters.
 
afjess1989

afjess1989

Amount of F##Ks given, 0
Haha! None of this matters. We will have flying cars before we get a new bridge... Then they will stop working on the current one and use it as a monument.
 
bohman

bohman

Well-Known Member
ltown81 said:
What do you want to bet they would make it some form of toll bridge. I can't see a $750 Million to $1 Billion project in an area down here happening any other way.

Say they did...I wonder how that would change the behavior of people down here. How many people would not just run across the Bridge for dinner, or shopping.

Just to be clear...I know nothing about the thinking of whoever makes the decisions. Just looking at the fact that similar bridges like the Nice Brige have such tolls, and in general, I can't see Maryland spending $750 million+ without tolls for a bridge down here.

That being said, odds are, we will all be retired when any of this matters.
Click to expand...

With any luck, they would do it the same way the Hatem bridge between Cecil & Harford operates. For the price of one toll, you can buy a decal that is good for one year. It keeps things reasonable for the locals that go over it every day.

We can never assume that common sense will be applied here, though.
 
TPD

TPD

the poor dad
I've said this before - rather than build a new bridge, why not use ferries directly linking PAX River to Solomons during morning and evening rush hour? Why must we spend a billion dollars for a problem that really only occurs for about 3 hours per day, 5 days per week? Ferries could be cheaper and faster if done right. I've traveled many places around the world that use their waterways to their advantage. For some reason here in the US, we have an aversion to ferries as a means of real transportation to get us from point A to B.
 
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
TPD said:
I've said this before - rather than build a new bridge, why not use ferries directly linking PAX River to Solomons during morning and evening rush hour? Why must we spend a billion dollars for a problem that really only occurs for about 3 hours per day, 5 days per week? Ferries could be cheaper and faster if done right. I've traveled many places around the world that use their waterways to their advantage. For some reason here in the US, we have an aversion to ferries as a means of real transportation to get us from point A to B.
Click to expand...

The problem with ferries is that they'll be shutdown every time there's any sort of weather event, making them very unreliable.
 
D

dan0623_2000

Active Member
TPD said:
I've said this before - rather than build a new bridge, why not use ferries directly linking PAX River to Solomons during morning and evening rush hour? Why must we spend a billion dollars for a problem that really only occurs for about 3 hours per day, 5 days per week? Ferries could be cheaper and faster if done right. I've traveled many places around the world that use their waterways to their advantage. For some reason here in the US, we have an aversion to ferries as a means of real transportation to get us from point A to B.[/QUOT

I find that a litle hard to believe that ferries can move as many cars as the TJ bridge does.
I am waiting to be enlightened with the figures
Click to expand...
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
awpitt said:
The problem with ferries is that they'll be shutdown every time there's any sort of weather event, making them very unreliable.
Click to expand...

If you make a ferry big enough to handle the amount of traffic to b not have traffic backed up, it would be big enough to span the river then it wouldn't be a ferry but a floating bridge
 
Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
Does the bridge need to be so tall? Is there any commercial ships that require that height? I mean, I don't think they can't get past the bridge at Benedict.
 
Baja28

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
Rommey said:
Does the bridge need to be so tall? Is there any commercial ships that require that height? I mean, I don't think they can't get past the bridge at Benedict.
Click to expand...
I assume it was for the naval annex but I have never seen a navy vessel go under that needed the bridge to be even half as tall.
 
D

dan0623_2000

Active Member
Rommey said:
Does the bridge need to be so tall? Is there any commercial ships that require that height? I mean, I don't think they can't get past the bridge at Benedict.
Click to expand...

The bridge is where it is today because the Navy fought against it's first proposed location which was for it to go straight across at Point Patience. The Navy was always against the bridge, but once the Nuke plant was ok by the Federal government they had to get with the program. That being said they then said a navy destoryer had to be able to go under the bridge. I am not sure of the figures but if I remember correctly the mast of the then present day destroyer was 143 ft above the waterline, so the powers to be settled on the bridge being 147 ft above the waterline at a mean high tide. At one time a draw bridge was also on the planning boards but the navy was against that plan also.
Have a good day
 
FireBrand

FireBrand

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dan0623_2000 said:
The bridge is where it is today because the Navy fought against it's first proposed location which was for it to go straight across at Point Patience. The Navy was always against the bridge, but once the Nuke plant was ok by the Federal government they had to get with the program. That being said they then said a navy destoryer had to be able to go under the bridge. I am not sure of the figures but if I remember correctly the mast of the then present day destroyer was 143 ft above the waterline, so the powers to be settled on the bridge being 147 ft above the waterline at a mean high tide. At one time a draw bridge was also on the planning boards but the navy was against that plan also.
Have a good day
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top