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

Why a new or wider Bay Bridge would be the wrong answer

The Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) gave us the oh so useful $1.1 billion I-95 express toll lanes north of the Harbor Tunnels and the equally underperforming  $2.5 billion Intercounty Connector.

So we naturally couldn't wait until we heard about  the next big billion dollar boondoggle the MDTA wants to sell to politicians and constituents. (I really like how the Governor enriched the discourse of the transportation debate with this technical term, for indeed, the transport industry is right up there with the military and Hollywood when it comes to the production of boondoggles.)

The two spans of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge built in 1952 and 1973

Just in time for Christmas we received the latest multi billion dollar MDTA wish wrapped nicely in a "life cycle cost analysts". That sounds pretty scientific, and loaded with options, statistics and tables  the report looks the part even if any sane person would find projections 50 years forward a very daring exercise. But aside from that, as the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out".

This isn't to say that the report in itself is unprofessional, faulty or flawed, far from me to even judge that! What I am saying is that the report asks the wrong questions and therefore gives the wrong answers, just like that scientific analysis some 120 years ago that tried to gauge the depth of horse manure on London's streets by extrapolating the conditions of 1894 into the year 1944. We all know how that went.

The existing Bay Bridge structures are currently in satisfactory condition. The structural analysisshows that with programmed and anticipated rehabilitation and maintenance the existing structures can be maintained in fair or better condition through 2065, at which point the eastbound structure will be 113 years old and the westbound structure will be 92 years old. Beyond 2065, it is difficult to project whatrehabilitation and maintenance would be required to keep the bridgesin fair or better condition, but it is likely that major rehabilitation projects would be required that would necessitate extensive short‐term and/or long‐term lane closures. These future projects could have a major, detrimental impact on available bridge capacity and operations. Therefore, 2065 wasidentified asthe horizon year for when Bay Bridge improvements would have to be implemented. (Report)

The Bay Bridge study is a bit like the horse manure crisis of 1894 when it tries to paint a picture of horrible congestion by 2040 at a time in transportation history which could turn out to be just as transformative as the shift from horses to cars 100 years ago. Instead of increasing from today's 70,000 vehicles to 92,000 a day by 2040 (with 125,000 in the summer peak), the traffic counts could actually go down even if population increase and attractiveness of the Eastern Shore as a place to live should continue.

How? 

Just assume that the technological advance of the autonomous vehicle (AV) will make more people realize that the transportation model of the self-owned single occupant car that sits around unused for about 95% of the time is obsolete. Just assume more people would prefer the car sharing "Uber model", just without a driver, and imagine further how self driving cars could act like huge trains, especially when it comes to traversing the Bay Bridge. With those assumptions congestion would certainly go down and possibly even the number of trips because of pooled vehicles. AVs could potentially increase capacity by 50%. 

In addition to this, the trend to urban living could continue and break or weaken the attraction of the Eastern Shore as a giant bedroom community with the jobs on the other side of the Bay. This consideration is important even before we talk about climate change, rising sea levels and environmental protection as variables that could reduce travel and especially commuting demand as well, namely because large parts of the developable areas on the Eastern Shore lie within the threat zones. 

Chester /Stephensville, the first communities on the Eastern
Shore side of the Bay Bridge have seen significant growth.
The ongoing car centric efforts of rapid travel to the beach
has all but ruined the character of the Eastern Shore along
the first several miles after the bridge

None of this is certain at this point and nobody knows how trends will unfold by 2040 or 2065 a full 25 or 50 years years from now. (Just think 25 years back: In 1990 the Internet had just begun, there was no Amazon, no hybrid cars and cities were roiling from abandonment across the country).

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, even if everything would just continue to be as it is today (as the study assumes), we know that adding capacity does not solve congestion! It simply creates new (induced) demand inviting more people to live on the Eastern Shore and pave over the landscapes and shorelines that need to remain pristine or should be restored to be pristine again so they can help bring back the waters of the Bay to healthy conditions. Doing that would be a crime against the lands and the waters we all love. 

Therefore, considerations about the future mobility in the larger region should begin with acceptable outcomes and work out how those outcomes can be achieved instead of open ended extrapolations of current utterly unsustainable trends. 

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

The author participated in a 2004 growth management masterplan for the Stevensville/Chester area of Queen Anne's County on the Eastern Shore. The matter was too controversial to be adopted. It died in the local Citizen Advisory Committee which was split over the issue. 

The biggest threat to the Eastern Shore isn't water

Before rising sea-levels  can become life threatening to the Eastern Shore asphalt may be the biggest threat fueled by a Governor who hasn't seen a road project he doesn't like, including widening of far afield roadways like MD 404  or MD 219 becoming narrow country roads in the neighboring states of Pennsylvania and Delaware. Hogan says: "the war on rural Maryland is over ... you have a voice in Annapolis." (in Cumberland on 10/14/17) It isn't surprising that his Department of Transportation has embarked on an environmental impact study (EIS) for another Bay crossing. The study got its own website and kicked on November 15 off with a rather dull online presentation of what such a study entails. Even a small sample will put you to sleep:

Governor Hogan at the Bay Bridge (SUN photo)

A Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is part of a two-tiered process, will be prepared by MDTA and led by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The two-tiered process provides a systematic approach for advancing potential transportation improvements. The regional analyses undertaken during Tier 1 will involve evaluation of approximately one-mile wide corridors using a broad-scale level of detail for engineering and environmental information. The Tier 1 EIS will result in selection of a corridor alternative that best meets the study purpose and need. Following the Tier 1 study, a Tier 2 study will identify specific alignment alternatives within the corridor alternative that is identified in Tier 1.

 Contrary to the dull text, the matter of the Bay crossing is existential for the DelMarVa peninsula. At stake is nothing less than the future of the Eastern Shore. Governor Hogan describes the future this way:

"Marylanders all across the state depend on being able to cross the Chesapeake Bay, but the reality is that there is simply too much traffic, and that it will continue to get worse." (Governor Hogan on August 30, 2016)

Secretary Pete Rahn also sees a bleak future:

"The Bay Bridge can be maintained safely through 2065 with preservation and maintenance work; however, studies show that by 2040, motorists could experience up to 14-mile delays," Secretary Pete K. Rahn. 

Unfortunately extraploating the future form the past or applying linear zero sum game thinking is highly inaccurate in transportation. The equation more roads =less congestion has been proven wrong ever since the first roads have been built. The dynamic between road capacity and travel demand is far from static because added supply also changes the demand. People decide trips based on their duration. If added lanes will shorten a 20 mile journey from 30 minutes to 20 minutes the range of people who consider 30 minute commutes as the acceptable limit has geographically expanded potential users from 20 miles to an area of 30 miles.

US 50 congestion near Bay Bridge

Furthermore, transportation has long been redefined from moving vehicles (over a given distance) to creating mobility for people and goods. In the mobility system there are many more variables in play than a given supply and demand. Variables include land-use (which influences the need for trips and their length in the first place) as well as mode. Proper land use can shorten trips or avoid them altogether. Mode choice may mean short distances can be walked or biked or longer ones be undertaken by bus or train.

Mobility planners also employ demand management strategies that reduce demand not only through land use or mode choice but by making transportation cost respond to demand just as in Uber or airline pricing . Cost can be influenced through incentives (making transit tickets tax deductible or employer paid etc.) or through "sticks" such as making driving or parking more expensive during peak times.  As in any management system, planners seek to find optimal usage patterns that utilize an investment without being too spiky. A spiky pattern is one where during certain periods all potential users want the system at once while it sits largely fallow for the rest of the time.

The Bay Bridges are a case of very spiky demand, with peaks concentrated on a few hours during weekends in the beach season. From the above it is obvious, that high congestion during those peak hours does not necessarily mean that the solution has to be added capacity. The demand problem could, at least theoretically, be also solved by spreading the demand through dynamic pricing, or reducing it by offering mode choice (rapid beach buses) and different land use patterns.

Where to cross the Bay?

And all these variables do not even account for the imminent transportation revolution: The appearance of self driving (autonomous) vehicles (AV) which will change everything, long before the last automobile will be converted to run itself. How? Roadway capacity modeling shows that human drivers use roadways very inefficiently: For example by being inattentive, aggressive or incompetent drivers cause friction that in turn causes surrounding vehicles to take evasive action, break or anything else that causes friction and ripples through the system which often amplify over distance until far away vehicles come to a complete stand-still. AVs, by contrast can travel in densely packed platoons in almost ideal flow conditions. Transportation models show that even with only 50% AV saturation, road capacity increases. With 100% saturation road capacity is estimated to almost double.  In other words, the AV, almost certainly a widespread reality by the time a new bridge span would open, will have made the new bridge obsolete before it even opens.

Hogan's mantra that only additional pavement can solve the problem is certainly wrong, especially for a Bay crossing where demand is very intermittent and spiky.

The simplicity of traditional auto-orientated transportation planning becomes even more evident if one puts transportation into the context of economic development, the environment, equity and sustainability. The single minded focus of "reach the beach" by car and as fast as possible has already drastically changed the Eastern Shore, and not for the better as most residents on both sides of the Bay would agree.

Reversible lanes, toll collection on only one side, and EZ passes are classic management strategies which allowed the bridges to absorb the added capacity that all the additional pavement on both sides of the Bay Bridge along with the replacement of the draw-bridge at the Kent Narrows have brought. As an unintended consequence large parts of Kent Island and beyond have become part of the Baltimore-Washington commuter-shed, converting stretches of US-50 into commercial strips more reminiscent of Ritchie Highway in Glen Burnie than the scenic, calm and peaceful rural roads which used to characterize these parts of Maryland.

Unsustainable waterfront development 

The question of how Maryland should look in the future lies at the doorstep of the State's Department of Planning. The now aborted effort of Plan Maryland tried to address some type of larger picture that would avoid the complete homogenization of the State from the mountains to the sea which results from unregulated and unfettered business as usual. Current land use planning, which Hogan sees solely in the hand of local government, is often at odds between different jurisdictions, is frequently myopic and certainly doesn't provide the bigger picture statewide perspective which is needed for smarter planning. Governor Hogan does not believe in State planning; but he nevertheless started an effort to comply with Maryland's law that requires some type of State Plan. He calls it Better Maryland.

To truly plan for a better Maryland the ongoing unprecedented paving-over of farms, forests and open spaces has to be curbed. The question of a Better Maryland and an additional Bay Crossing are inextricably intertwined. Transportation and land use cannot be resolved in isolation from each other.  No longer can one believe the transportation planner myth that their systems simply follow land use. Instead, transportation shapes land use and always has.

Anybody who cares about Maryland's rural spaces needs to understand that the true "war on rural Maryland" occurs when shopping centers, gas stations, roads and soul-less subdivisions are allowed  to gobble up centuries of culture and geography. The idea of an additional Bay Crossing is nothing but a declaration of war on the Eastern Shore as most Marylanders  know and love it. As such, the Environmental Impact Study now underway is not just a dull process for geeks, but an opportunity to put a stop to the madness of designing each road for the short moments of maximum demand.

To make this point I submitted the following official comment regarding the Bay Crossing on the MDOT website.

There are many ways from land use to transportation management and dynamic pricing to manage peak demand on the existing bay crossings that would not require added capacity to mitigate congestion.

Bay Bridge Run

Furthermore, it is almost certain that autonomous vehicles will have a wide penetration by the time an added crossing would be in place. Almost all experts AV prognosticate that the AV will add anywhere between 50 to a 100% of capacity on existing available pavement areas, in part through efficient platooning and speed with no or much less friction from human behavior in part through narrower travel lanes for guided vehicles.

On the other hand, the impact of added vehicles flooding to the Eastern Shore is significant for the culture and the ecosystem of the peninsula which most Marylanders cherish.  This has already become evident from past efforts to make "reach the beach" easier. Only a few would consider the transformation of the landscapes along US 50 and MD 404 which now in parts resemble Ritchie Highway or York Road a positive. Homogenizing the rural landscapes through sprawl is the true "war on rural Maryland" , not the alleged restrictions stemming from carefully planning Maryland which strive to maintain the historic landscapes and cultures in an environmentally and economically sustainable way.

As a Maryland resident, a a friend of the Eastern Shore, as a planner and transportation expert I am opposed to any additional vehicular bridge crossings and strongly suggest to solve existing very "spiky" capacity problems (capacity issues exist only at relatively short peak times, probably less than 5% of total time) through transportation management, mode choice, dynamic pricing and preparation for AVs. Those no-build scenarios must be fully analyzed and included in the alternatives for the EIS.

In 2015 I ended an article about the Bay Bridge with these words: Therefore, considerations about the future mobility in the larger region should begin with acceptable outcomes and work out how those outcomes can be achieved instead of open ended extrapolations of current utterly unsustainable trends. 
I think in 2017 this still holds true.
Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

See also my 2015 article:
Why a new or wider Bay Bridge would be the wrong answer 

A "Cathedral of American Infrastructure" - gone in a few seconds

I learned about the bridge collapse the old fashioned way: by word of mouth. On my early morning walk at 6am my neighbor stopped his pick up truck, rolled the window down and said, "the Key Bridge is gone". With that he showed me the video clip of the ship ramming the pier and the immediate collapse. "All gone" he said, and added "be safe" before he drove on to his work. 

Francis Key Bridge, a "Cathedral of American Infrastructure"

Later on this calamitous day the Mayor of Baltimore, the Baltimore County Executive, Congressmen, the Secretaries of the State and federal Transportation departments and even the President himself expressed their shock about what had happened. 

DOT Secretary called the bridge a "cathedral of American infrastructure" and with that adequately expressed the meaning of the bridge in the minds of people in Maryland and beyond for whom this bridge was an iconic landmark that was visible from many vantage points. One could stand in Patterson Park and if the weather was good clearly see the Key Bridge. Seeing it added value to real estate like like seeing the Washington Monument in DC or the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The industrial touch was apt for this industrial legacy city with a proud history in steel, right next to the bridge at Sparrows Point which is currently being reborn as a distribution/manufacturing and shipping center. The New York Times observed that "the Key, with its gently sloping arch and views that no tunnel could match, had become an emblem of Baltimore’s identity as a working port city". Former Mayor Kurt Schmoke called it a "blue collar bridge". Those blue collar workers are now facing an uncertain future as long as the shipping channel remains blocked and access to Sparrows Point limited.  

For now the giant container cranes of the port of Baltimore have to act as the stand-ins, their line up clearly pointing to where the bridge is now missing with the jarring ramps pointlessly reaching up to the void. 

A clip from the video showing the bridge buckling

The collapse caused waves around the globe. For a day it became top news in many media and TV outlets, nationally and internationally. German TV sent their reporter from Washington to Baltimore for a live report on site, Spanish noticias brought a Spanish engineer into view who explained why their biggest bridge, the Puente de la Constitución de 1812 in Cádiz would not experience the same fate. French TV at one point focused entirely on the ship and how it was unheard of that all its systems would fail at the same time. British tabloids had engineers explain the flaws of the continuous truss bridge design.

This is a remarkable effect, in part owed in part to the unique coincidence of events which never have happened like this before, in part due to the sheer size of both the bridge and the ship for which it was no match. The Dali is 985 feet (300 meters) long and about 157 feet (48 meters) wide and weighed with cargo about 115,000 tons. The global response also speaks to both, the power of design and engineering as much as to their weakness when it comes to the most daring design and engineering endeavors. 

The world was shocked when the Hindenburg burnt, when a manned space shuttle disintegrated in space and when two regular airliners brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and in each case the shock seems to have been a mix of mourning for the lost life and utter astonishment that things can fail so spectacularly. The more awe inspiring a design is, the bigger the shock when it gets destroyed. 

The bridge, the giant ship and the idled port (BBJ)

The Key Bridge was awe inspiring because its tall arched steel truss could be seen for miles and was very impressive when traversing the bridge in a car, high up above the water with the skyline of Baltimore in the distance. And this design was also impressive for engineers, the truss was reportedly the third longest continuous steel truss span in the world and the second longest in the US. Construction began in 1972 and the bridge was opened to traffic on March 23, 1977 as the last piece closing the Baltimore Beltway I-695. Including its connecting approaches, the total project length encompasses a 10.9-mile corridor. Of course, now the impressive truss becomes a liability since the design lacked redundancy. Lacking redundancy generates elegance but also increases vulnerability.

'When you take away one of the supports you get a catastrophic failure because all those parts that are interconnected suddenly become overloaded,' Julian Carter, a Fellow of the UK Institution of Civil Engineers as quoted in the British Daily Mail

The fallen bridge still blocks the port of Baltimore and with it vital shipping of bulk cargo, cruise ships and also container shipping which is generally not Baltimore's main staple. Finding the victims of the collapse in the water is the first priority. Once again highway maintenance workers died while doing work on the beltway. Then clearing the shipping channel will be urgent. While everyone in this region knew the Key Bridge, many only now learn how important Baltimore's port is for this region and far beyond.

 

The technical aspects of the bridge (Daily Mail, UK)

The president highlighted that the Port of Baltimore is one of the nation's largest shipping hubs and that it handled a record amount of cargo last year. He added that 850,000 vehicles go through the port every single year, 15,000 jobs depend on the port, and 30,000 vehicles cross the bridge on a daily basis (The Hill)

Soon enough minds will turn to designing a replacement bridge, which will likely take years. Should speed win over esthetics or should the new bridge strive to be iconic once again? Designing a bridge spanning the shipping channel high enough for tall ships to clear cannot be done with a ready to go standard highway bridge design. Most likely the specifications alone will make a new bridge also remarkable and eventually a new landmark, whether it uses steel trusses or cable trusses or some other technique. Maybe a temporary low structure that would be opened up for ships to pass could take some pressure off a new final bridge design which most cost effectively would connect to the still standing approach ramps. 

Certainly lessons will be applied, none of them simple or cheap. The first place to apply lessons may not be a new Key Bridge but the nearby Bay Bridge double span as well as the far away Oakland Bay Bridge, the Delaware Bridge and many others which appear to be equally vulnerable. 

Only if the new connection would be a tunnel would it not be a landmark any longer, but a tunnel wouldn't solve the issue of hazardous cargo that is prohibited on all tunnels, including the already existing tunnels under the Baltimore Harbor.

Spanish Cable Stayed Puente de la Constitución de 1812 in Cádiz 

“I do not know of a bridge that has been constructed to withstand a direct impact from a vessel of this size,” DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg

He may well be right. The force from a 115 000 ton ship moving at 9mph is beyond any impact force that is in the current design guidelines for bridges. From 1960 to 2015, there were 35 major bridge collapses worldwide due to ship or barge collisions, according to the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure. Redundancy in the bridge design would make a collapse less likely or allow a partial one versus a total collapse. Stronger pylons would withstand bigger impacts and guideposts and floating "dolphin" barriers may direct ships away from pylons. Keeping tugboats steering the ship until it passed the bridge maybe another option. One can hope that engineers and designers rise to the occasion. But no design will ever be able to prevent failure against what was not calculated or anticipated. 

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

The New Key Bridge - More Questions than Answers

 Three months after the catastrophic collapse of the Baltimore Francis Scott Key Bridge with the clean-up of the shipping channel completed in an extraordinary effort "under unified command" at a cost of about $150 million, the only certain thing is that the old bridge is gone. It is uncertain how the new bridge will look, how tall it will be, how far it will span, how many lanes it will have and who will pay for it.  That is a lot of uncertainty, some on account of all the chaos in Washington and some on account of a process called  “progressive design-build” (PBD).

The Francis Scott Key Bridge, a landmark and a gateway 
to Baltimore, 1.6 mile long, longest span 1,200'
(Photo: A. Perna/SUN) 

The matter of the new bridge has been thrusted into the hands of Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA), the agency in charge of Maryland's toll roads and toll facilities. Part of the Maryland Department of Transportation and created in 1971, these folks have built big stuff before, the Inter-County Connector (ICC), the MD 95 toll lanes north of the Harbor tunnel and the giant interchange with I-95. They were in charge of the construction of the Fort McHenry tunnel (1985) and oversaw the completion of the second span of the Bay Bridge (1973). Recently they completed the Middleton Nice bridge. A current MDTA investigation is the construction of a third Bay bridge.

But all of those projects had been on the books for decades, were thoroughly planned, designed and eventually included in the capital transportation investment plans. Some projects, such as the ICC were highly controversial and used innovative funding (GARVI bonds) and construction methods (Design-Build). Nothing compares to a project that originated overnight, has no firm funding and is estimated to cost $2.7 bn and to be completed in just 4 years.

Slide from the Industry Day: Very few specifics

Nevertheless, the MDTA went to work and put out a request for proposals (RFP) at the end of May. Responders had to be quick, the deadline for a response was June 24. The selected bidder is scheduled to be announced in July. 

The general set-up of "progressive design build"
(MDTA Slide from Industry Day)

The 54 page RFP  with a 139 page appendix is very cursory and leaves almost everything open for the two-step "progressive" approach in which a design framework is jointly created between MDTA and the successful bidder, followed by construction by the same team if the price is right. 

0. The process involves a single contract that unites MDTA with the selected PDB team, which includes contractor and designer roles. This procurement will select a qualified team for initial services to develop the project scope and requirements in collaboration with MDTA and project stakeholders. Upon successful completion of Phase 1, the PDB entity will have exclusive negotiating rights for Phase 2, which includes project final design/engineering and construction. In the event a guaranteed maximum price is not agreed upon, the MDTA will deliver the work under a separate contracting mechanism. (MDTA press release)

It is the point of "progressive design-build" to save time by working out the design between owner, designer and contractor. This aims to avoid the possibility that a design created by MDTA would take months or years to prepare only to be revised if the construction cost would come in too high at the time of bid. However, without any design and without funding it is hard to know what is "too high", even if a cost framework has been established. 

It isn't obvious, why the MDTA wouldn't at least stipulate a few design parameters as a given, even within the progressive design-build approach. During the "industry day" that preceded the RFP 1700 people registered indicating massive interest very little information was given about what would drive the redesign.  An unsolicited proposal from before the RFP submitted to MDOT soon after the collapse could have provided ideas and insights. The proposal, as reported, included higher vertical clearance and a much wider span across the shipping channel that would place the pylons in shallow waters outside the reach of big ships and thus avoiding the need for costly “dolphins” to protect them.

Corpus Christi, TX Harbor Bridge before (Truss bridge) and after
(Cable stayed): Higher and wider (205' clear ht)

Clarifying design principles in some kind of performance specification would put all bidders on equal footing, literally and figuratively, a goal of any typical request for proposals, popularly known as comparing apples to apples. 

Questions abound: 

• Should the new bridge should sit in the exact same vertical and horizontal alignment as the old one or whether it should wider and higher? The port indicated that a higher bridge is needed.
• MDTA received a determination from the federal government that they would grant the project a "categorical exclusion" (CE) which eliminates the time consuming preparation of a full environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA. At which point would modifications in width, height and spans challenge the assumption that a new bridge would not create additional environmental impacts? 
• Closely related to the question of design metrics is the question whether the concrete approach parts of the bridge could remain or must be demolished. Those ramps over water still stand and were not impacted by the collision and collapse. The RFP states that it is assumed that they would be demolished but doesn't explain why such a costly and time consuming assumption is made nor is it made entirely clear who would be responsible for that demolition and whether such demolition would still fall under a CE.  
• What are the required minimum protective measures for the supports?
• Is the projected project cost of $2.7bn realistic and what is it based on?
• Why would we settle for 4.5 years to completion? The projected time of Oct 2028 wouldn't be a speed record in bridge reconstruction after a collapse. Minnesota did it faster and spectacularly also Italy. There a big bridge in Genoa was redesigned and completed in 18 months involving local architect  Renzo Piano for attractive design. (The RFP allows for faster completion, of course and promises incentives to do so).

The collapse of the Key Bridge was a traumatic event that in an instant not only blocked one of the nation's busiest ports, but also eliminated a local landmark and severed a vital regional traffic artery that is urgently needed for truck traffic, commuting and a complete freeway network. The trauma shouldn't be followed by the drama of delays and cost overruns as in the case of the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge or the Gordie Howe International Bridge towards Canada. The latter was scheduled to open this year but is delayed and has recently been estimated for a final cost of $4.7bn US dollars.

Cable stayed bridges: Gordie Howe International Bridge, MI (2024),
1.5 miles long, 138' clearance, delayed completion, cost $4.7 bn

Little of Governor Moore's word power, which he frequently and effectively used during the clean-up efforts under the "Unified Command",  has been used to speak about the new bridge design or set the framework for this extraordinary task. 

It was frequently mentioned how much the Key Bridge meant for Marylanders or Baltimoreans and how its sudden loss has carved a deep scar in the minds and hearts of many. What does this trauma mean for the rebuild process and the design one should expect for the replacement bridge?

Such  non-technical notions do not come easy to the bureaucrats and engineers who usually manage RFPs but they should set the stage for a task that is like none before.

The new bridge needs not only to be built extraordinarily fast, it has to be of such an excellent design that is it can become a recognizable and authentic landmark again. The new bridge needs to respond to rising sea levels, larger ships and increasing demands for alternative transportation modes such as transit, bikes and pedestrians that have previously not been accommodated on the bridge. 

The public can only hope that communication about what will happen next and how the MDTA will select the winning partner, and how it will establish metrics for design will be ramped up in the coming weeks. It can be expected that there are lots of interests that want to have say in this. Already there has been discussion whether a new bridge should have more vertical clearance than the 185' feet the old bridge had. The public deserves nothing less than participation and full transparency, no matter that everything has to happen fast. 

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

Lowering Tolls = Cutting Transit?

The Maryland toll authority under the Secretary of Transportation just approved a significant reduction of  bridge and tunnel tolls in Maryland.

This represents a tilt towards support for car traffic over investment in transit and a curious reduction of available funds for transportation in a region with very high unmet transportation needs. However, toll facilities are accounted separately and experts assure that the toll decision would not affect the liquidity of the transportation trust fund.

The decision seems to be more based on placating the Governor's voting base than on planning a healthy future for the region. 

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

updated 5/11/15

WBAL notice

Maryland cuts toll rates at Chesapeake Bay Bridge, ICC

BBJ article

Here's what the changes will do: (From the BBJ):

• Eliminate the E-ZPass Maryland monthly $1.50 account fee for Maryland residents.
• Reduce all toll rates at the Bay Bridge, including a reduction in the two-axle cash rate from $6 to $4 round trip and in the commuter rate from $2.10 to $1.40.
• Increase the E-ZPass Maryland discount from 10 percent to 37.5 percent at the Bay Bridge. Toll drops from $5.40 to $2.50 round trip.
• Increase the E-ZPass Maryland discount from 10 percent to 25 percent for the Baltimore Harbor (I-895) and Fort McHenry (I-95) tunnels, the Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695), the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge (US 40) and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway (I-95).
• Reduce two-axle toll rates on the ICC/MD200 and I-95 Express Toll Lanes for all pricing periods by $.03 per mile. The change reduces a two-axle, peak period trip from I-270/I-370 to US 1 on the ICC from $4.40 to $3.86 (E-ZPass), and a two-axle, peak period trip on the I-95 Express Toll Lanes from $1.75 to $1.54 (E-ZPass). Other ICC and I-95 Express Toll Rates also will be reduced based on standard multipliers per axle.
• Establish a 30 percent discount at the Hatem Bridge for three- and four-axle vehicles with E-ZPass Maryland - three-axle toll drops from $16 to $11.20, while four-axle toll drops from $24 to $16.80.
• Increase E-ZPass Maryland supplemental rebate program for vehicles with five or more axles by 5 percentage points per trip level.

The Bombshell News About the Key Bridge Rebuild

 Just when I thought that enough had been said about the Key Bridge collapse and rebuild, (I wrote two previous blog articles on the topic) a bombshell exploded yesterday that confirmed the worst fears about what could go wrong with the reconstruction. MDOT announced that the bridge would be nearly 300% more expensive than the previously published lower end of the estimated cost ($1.9 bn) and the completion time would be pushed back 2 additional years to 2030, i.e. extended by 50%! The media reported without comment, dutifully quoting the official explanations which had to do with inflation, tariffs and protected bride supports. I will get to this in a moment.

The proposed new Key Bridge (MdTA rendering)

It had been suspiciously quiet around the rebuilding of Key Bridge after the almost daily updates during the cleanup of the wrecked bridge right after the collapse. You will remember, the clean-up was completed ahead of the schedule which the "Unified Command" had set for itself with a heavy participation of Governor Moore. 

Impressed by that delivery, I had suggested to create a similar emergency framework around the rebuild as well, a unified command type structure in lieu of the highly regulated business as usual approach which is typical for public transportation projects.

Alas, the project was handed to the Maryland Transportation Authority MdTA, a branch under the Maryland Department of Transportation. There was some media noise around the request for proposals for the innovative "progressive design build" (PDB) title which was described by MdTA as a two-phase  approach. The PDB was supposed to foster collaboration, ensure flexibility, and compress the schedule in that no time was spent to prepare a design or specifications for the bidder. Not even the required new clear height or the minimum required protection of the piers was provided, the latter a no brainer after a pier had so spectacularly failed when the rudderless Dali had rammed it. The basic parameters were supposed to be established in phase 1 of the procurement along with a firm cost. Should design and cost be acceptable, MdTA would proceed with the selected bidder, otherwise it would "deliver the work under a separate contracting mechanism" (MdTA press release).

Original MdTA schedule (community meeting)

The silence from MdTA continued even when the anticipated  milestone of summer 2025 as the end of a conceptual design phase and a firming up of the cost anticipated came and went. The news about the Key Bridge were limited to details about the demolition of the remaining concrete portions of the bridge, the driving of test piles for the new bridge and that the new bridge would be offset to the side of the old one and not be constructed in the exact same place. It had also been shared that the new bridge would be some 50' taller than the old one and that it would be, as expected, "cable stayed". 

The cost and schedule bomb was detonated now, months after  the initial milestone. Kiewit, the selected bidder and designer, must have convinced MdTA officials that their exploded cost estimate was entirely reasonable since there is no word about ""delivering the work under a separate contracting mechanism."  According to Kiewit's own website, their official construction cost is still months away and will only be submitted in "the first quarter of 2026". Kiewit is only now soliciting subcontractor proposals for many trades.  

Apparently, the Trump administration's Department of Transportation got wind of the cost and schedule problems ahead of the public. Secretary Sean Duffy expressed in a September letter  "concerns" about "ballooning" cost, a slipping schedule and the DBE set-asides which are common practice for all public projects in Maryland. He added ominously: "We will leverage our oversight authorities to ensure this vital bridge is rebuilt the right way.” 

the large approach ramps that are being fully demolished (MdTA photo)

The last thing that Marylanders need is that Key Bridge rebuild becomes a political football. However, given the acrimony between the Governor and the President, it is unlikely that the feds will fork over two or three times the originally estimated $1.9 bn. This  which would throw Maryland's already troubled budget into even more stress. The official reasons given by MDOT why the bridge will be so much more expensive and so much slower to build point to Trump's tariffs, overall inflation and unexpected extra cost. Neither the tariffs nor the high inflation of construction materials can fully explain a cost increase of 200-300%. I suppose, unforeseen from the standpoint of a bidder in 2024, was the new bridge height of 230" feet instead of the previous 180'. Taller translates into longer approach ramps, taller pylons, higher loads, i.e. overall higher cost.  If cost and expediency was of utmost importance, a much more moderate increase of the clearance may have sufficed as well, especially since the Bay Bridge is only as tall as the old Key Bridge. Pans for a full reconstruction are in a pretty distant future. A less tall bridge may have allowed maintaining the old access ramps, although MdTA denies that this was an option. 

Even the new exorbitant cost doesn't allow any pedestrian or bike access to or across the bridge or any type of customization such as a viewing platform, iconic lighting or an art budget to name just a few things that could enhance the new bridge to become one again a landmark. 

More than all design aspects, though, what makes US infrastructure projects so slow and expensive, are  the bureaucratic procedures from procurement to permitting and construction. I got a first row view of that as a member of the Red Line project which a governor canceled for political reasons after 13 years of planning and review. 

Today public agencies such as MTA or MdTA don't have the staff to design or oversee large projects themselves. So, in addition to hiring contractors to build, they have to hire designers that draw things up and specify a project (in the case of the Key Bridge and the Purple Line the designer and contractor are part of the same contract), then they need to hire consultants that can oversee both, the design and the construction contractors. Every step of the way agencies have to involve the public (more consultants), follow all environmental laws (even more consultants and lawyers), procurement rules, labor contracts and the like (lots of lawyers). Most of these regulations have been enacted for good reasons, namely to protect the public. However, in an emergency it should be possible to cut to the chase and go straight for what needs to be done, just as it was demonstrated for the bridge debris removal and cleanup under "unified command" and as it was done for the large bridge in Genoa, Italy, that fell in a thunderstorm and was rebuilt in 18 months and within the budget. The same consortium that rebuilt the more than a mile long bridge there, offered their services here as well. As far as I know, they were never heard, let alone selected when they bid the job. 

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

previously on this blog:

The New Key Bridge - More Questions than Answers (7/24)

A "Cathedral of American Infrastructure" - gone in a few seconds (3/24)

Another Bay bridge is insanity

It so happened that the shortlist of options for another Bay crossing along with Governor Hogan's stated preference were announced on the same day Greta Thunberg arrived in the US sailing from Europe. She is the 16 year old climate activist who founded the international high school student movement Friday's for Future.

Greta Thunberg, climate activivist arrives in NYC (NYT)

This coincidence highlights better than anything how stuck in an almost forgotten past our Governor and his transportation Secretary are; how entirely unencumbered by any insight or thought the idea is to build another bridge crossing.

A new bridge isn't just a wasteful boondoggle, it would create irreparable damage to all the systems that are already teetering at the brink. It is irresponsible of  Maryland's transportation officials to have even kicked off a planning process for this ill fated idea and wasting valuable planning dollars on it, even though the realization of such a project would be far beyond the the point this government is in office.

More roadways to the shore? Full steam into the 1950s (SUN photo)

The additional Bay bridge idea is nothing than an extrapolation of the policies of the 1950's, the time when the first span was built in 1952. Eeven the second span, opening in 1973, seemed awkwardly out of its time when it fell into the same year as the OPEC oil embargo that became since known as America's first oil shock.  (Two more followed but had no impact on many decision makers, a fact Ms Thunberg never tires to point out. Especially Maryland's transportation officials have not learned these lessons since then:

• The bridge and the added span have opened the Eastern shore to unprecedented sprawl and destruction of valuable farmlands. By now it takes a full 10 miles to get out of the jumble of gas stations, fast food places and shopping centers lining a bloated US50 before one can even get a sense of the Eastern Shore landscapes. Vulnerable coastal wetlands near Stevensville and Chestertown have been paved over, sprawl mansions sit were framers once tended to fields.
• All the new capacity and development has added congestion not relieved it. Now many people think nothing of it to live on the Eastern Shore and work in Annapolis, Baltimore or DC, a completely unsustainable commute.
• Sprawl, development and endless promotion of a quick journey to the beach brought about more driving, more gasoline consumption and more air pollution, all premier contributors to climate change, the very issue threatening the Eastern Shore more than most other landscapes in the United States
• Added capacity can come in other ways than building more road lanes: New technologies will bring to better manage existing road-space with less congestion. It is estimated that autonomous connected vehicles of all types will increase existing roadway capacity in freeway conditions by at least 30%, just about what a new bridge span would provide. This in itself could spell calamity if not properly managed. But this and a third span is  lunacy. No matter who does the forecasting, those autonomous vehicles will be certainly everyday occurrence by the time a new bridge would be complete.
• More access points to the Eastern Shore can dilute the negative impacts if they are done by lower capacity solutions such as hybrid ferries.
  

  

  Gas shortages in 1973: Even two oil shocks are not  enough

No matter where the location [of a bridge], make no mistake, it will have an impact on the entire Eastern Shore. What is at stake is the Eastern Shore’s quality of life, heritage, and highly productive farmland. Should Kent County be the selected location, our small agrarian rural county with the smallest population and landmass in Maryland would be swamped with traffic and our open space littered with fast food chains. Our unique identity would be ended. (Op-Ed, Chestertown)

Defying all those reasons, the juggernaut of a transportation study will run its course, once it is kicked loose. It will be the duty of any responsible citizen who cares about the environment, about climate change, or about fiscal responsibility to come out (see meeting info here) and tell this administration that the study has to be stopped. The old mantra of unfettered growth, no matter what kind, and no matter how damaging, has to come to an end.

Reach the beach come hell or highwater: MDOT corridor alternatives

Funded by toll dollars, the Bay Crossing Study Tier 1 began in 2016 and is expected to be complete in 2021. The next steps are to publish a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and hold public hearings in fall 2020. The final steps are to identify the preferred corridor alternative and publish the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision in collaboration with FHWA in summer 2021. (MDOT website)

Greta Thunberg, still essentially a child,  sailed over the ocean to tell the adults to finally grow up and plan for her generation and those following her. There is hardly anybody who needs to hear her message more than Larry Hogan and his MDOT Secretary Rahn. 

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

Related posts on this blog:

How the State gets to spend $1.1 billion on I-95 toll lanes

The biggest threat to the Eastern Shore isn't water

Boondoggle over the Bay

Some people just don't get the somewhat counter-intuitive truth that you can't build your way out of congestion because of induced demand from added capacity. Hogan who redirected Baltimore's Red Line funds to build more roads is one of them.

the two existing Bay Bridges

SoTuesday he drove together with MDOT Secretary to a nice photo opp on the shore of the Bay for a brief press conference in which he announced that he ordered a study for an additional bridge across the Bay, because the current one has too many back-ups which are projected to get even longer. (14 miles by 2040). Hogan admitted that a 2015 life-cycle study showed that the existing pair of bridges could be kept functional for another 50 years or so. But hey, what about that pesky congestion that already bothered Donald Schaefer so much ("reach the beach").

Scenic press conference and announcement

The first step which Hogan announced Tuesday is an initial environmental impact study under the federal National Environmental Protection Act NEPA. He has set aside $5 million to review alternatives and their environmental repercussions, a study that could take up to four years to complete. "I won't be Governor when that bridge gets completed" he quipped, "but I want to be the one who got it started". A slew of studies preceded him, in 2007 then MDOT Secretary even studied a transit only bridge (it brought only a 1.1% reduction for the car traffic).


History may not look so kindly on Hogan's initiative.

Not only is the current bridge the only thing that stands between the big metro areas of DC and Baltimore and the large farms on the Eastern Shore, because its capacity limits prevent even more people from moving their bedrooms into the rural areas that are still left east of the Bay. Already the first 15 miles or so along Route 50, which mutated under Schafer to being a freeway, have become overrun by sprawl, gas stations and outlet malls. It has become common knowledge that this pattern of roadway centered development is inefficient, bankrupts jurisdictions in the long run, and is environmentally not sustainable, not to mention rising sealevels. But our Governor doesn't like "smart growth".

The other thing that neither Hogan nor his expert secretary seem to take into account is that we are on the verge of a transportation revolution in the shape of autonomous vehicles. Experts differ whether it will be three or ten years until those will become common, but nobody doubts that they will come. Whether they come as privately owned cars or as fleet vehicles that people hire, they will no doubt increase existing road capacity by somewhere between 50-100% because self driving cars can be stacked closer together, reach uniform speeds, travel in platoons and altogether cause a lot less friction on the road. In other words, those projections about back-ups on the Bay Bridge may be just as obsolete as those 1860 projections how high horse maneuver would pile up in the streets of London by 1920.

Meanwhile Hogan can be sure to get the applause from some of his rural Republican constituents who want to make sure that some State money comes their way, from businesses in Ocean City who can never see enough beach goers flock to their town,  and from those in the "urban elite" who want to get to the beach as fast as possible. There is never a shortage of those who support shortsighted and ultimately failing policies. Luckily, in four years when this first study will be done it may be much

95,000 cars a day in 2040- not a problem with AVs

more obvious what the future of automobility will hold.

Maybe by then Kevin Plank will operate a fleet of hovercraft between Port Covington and Rock Hall and folks will have rediscovered the beauty of travelling right on the water.

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

Hogan also showed off a new license plat design ("I don't like those red white and blue War of 1812 signs") in which he confessed to have had a hand himself, even his wife did ("she is somewhat better in that stuff").

Definitely hard to read with all that competing black.