How congestion on the Bay Bridge can be a good thing

Facts are facts, the saying goes. The implication is that facts stand on neutral territory, high above the swamps of political debate and dispute. The congestion and the back-ups resulting from the closure of a lane on the Bay Bridge are such facts. Number of cars backed up, length of the queue, hours lost. Facts.  But as we will see, even these facts can mean different things to different people. A full hog political battle is already unfolding.

Record back ups on both sides of the Bay Bridge
due to decking repairs

Bridge repairs bring unprecedented traffic misery to both sides of Chesapeake Bay. Washington Post

Unsurprisingly, our fearless Comptroller battled-proofed in matters of school air conditioning and an expert in just about anything, was the first to ride into the conflict, flags waving, sword blazing. Others soon joined: Congestion, in the age of the automobile is like the plague, it has to be avoided, no matter the cost. Franchot thinks even for the price of disrepair.

Aside from Franchot's foolish position, though, two opposite lines of thinking begin to take shape: Those for whom the back-ups prove that a new bay bridge is needed, a seemingly impeccable conclusion that should convince the last doubter still afraid of the huge cost of another bridge. But then there also those who think that the lane closure is a godsend which illustrates, how wrong our past land use and transportation policies have been. In that thinking the 2 years of lane closures will prove that a new bridge isn't needed at all. A seemingly hopelessly illogical position.

Since I confess to belonging to the second camp, I will have some explaining to do. Here you go:

For years population on the Eastern Shore has grown faster than on the "mainland", especially in Chester  and Kent Counties, near the bridge. The reason is simple: Every time the "reach the beach" frenzy of road construction and widening has pushed the envelope of a tolerable commute further out, more people wanted to take advantage of it. Deleting the westbound toll booths during the Schaefer era immediately opened up another 5 miles or so the the plausible commute shed, the time saved by not having to inch up to a toll booth. The EZ pass did a similar thing. So did the elimination of the Kent Narrows draw bridge. And so on, down the entire arsenal of those anti congestion apostles which have all the power at SHA and local planning offices.

Every time the gains were absorbed by new demand. Every minute shaved off the trip to Ocean City brought additional people who wanted to do the journey. Good for bead and breakfasts in OC, but bad for the Bay Bridge, for transportation, for land conservation and for the entire lifestyle of the Eastern Shore. Transportation planners call this induced demand. In short: Any improvement eats its own children. Fighting traffic with more lanes is like combating alcoholism with schnaps or obesity with donuts. Never was the Eastern Shore a designated growth area. No planner ever thought it makes a lot of sense to live across a huge body of water from their work.

So how would the lane closure help? If one accepts the law of induced demand that says that if you build for cars you get more cars, one can easily see that the reverse should be true as well: Take capacity away and fewer cars will come. This isn't just a theory. For example, once San Francisco's traffic planners decided not to rebuild the elevated Embarcadero freeway which had collapsed in an earthquake, the traffic volumes disappeared. People, streetcars, bicycles and electric scooters have taken over the space and San Francisco has become better for it. Businesses along the waterfront multiplied their profits.

Queenstown Outlet Mall: Ritchie Highway on the Eastern Shore

So how can reduced bridge traffic not result in an economic development disaster on the Eastern Shore? To understand the answer, we need to understand the difference between quantity and quality. A topic, admittedly leading away from from transportation: The very reason why the Eastern Shore is attractive in the first place are all qualitative: its wide open landscapes, it marshes and waterfronts, its calm and soothing atmosphere, its quaint towns to name just a few. Quantity destroys this attractiveness. Shopping centers, outlet malls, gas stations and endless subdivisions have turned miles of previously beautiful landscape into a copy of Ritchie Highway. The very reasons why people come disappear when too many come. It is obvious that a sustainable value proposition needs a happy medium. 

The optimal economic development of the Eastern Shore is not to cheapen every aspect down to the lowest common denominator until the whole place looks at best like the mainland or at worst like the State Fair in Timonium. Instead the lasting perspective must preserve what is authentic, natural and cherished. This isn't an elitist position but one of survival even before one talks about critical areas, land erosion, flooding, climate change or fertile soils.

So if fewer people can drive in a jiffy to the Eastern Shore, this could be a good thing. If fewer people decide to live in Stevensville and work in DC, it is a good thing in the same way as it is a good thing if fewer people live in zones of high risk of forest fires around LA. It was never a smart decision to rely on two 4.3 mile long aging bridge spans for a daily commute and assume that there never would be a problem.

The two years of lane closures for urgent maintenance will entice people to make smarter decisions, fewer trips. Maybe share a ride with a neighbor. Maybe, yes, maybe the local transit agency and the MTA could even work out a plan in which local buses take Eastern Shore residents to a park and ride near the bridge from where frequent MTA buses shuttle them to major transit hubs in the Annapolis, Baltimore and DC metro areas. Imagine that, a bus that has a priority lane to reach the bridge and that whisks 40 people over the bridge instead of creating congestion with 40 individuals each in a car.

After two years all kinds of reasonable solutions will have been found and the long quees will long have been forgotten. At the end, nobody will remember why the closed lane was ever needed, let alone another bridge. Wouldn't that be nice?

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA