New Bay Bridge unwise without more congestion measures

For all of recorded history, transportation networks have been vital to economic activity. Efficient operation of these networks depends on a balance of capacity supply and demand.

The Chesapeake Bay Bridge is a critical link in Maryland’s transportation network and has been operating with a demand that exceeds supply capacity. When demand exceeds supply, large delays develop very fast.

There are a number of ways that future supply capacity can be matched to the estimated future demand. The option that is the center of the current debate is the addition of a third bridge span. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is now open for comment and public hearings.

I vote for the No-Build Alternative. Because of the challenges facing humankind, from global climate change to pandemics, the future of single-vehicle passenger transportation is difficult to predict. The proposed carbon tax adoption of approximately $100 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel vehicles will change bridge traffic demand and cost estimates significantly. These factors were not considered in the current study.

Fossil fuels defeated the electric battery storage alternative almost a century ago. A simple example of the trade-off analysis is the time to re-supply an adequate energy charge to achieve a 300-mile vehicle range: three minutes at a gas pump versus 30 minutes at a battery charging station. High-charging current heat generation is a major battery problem.

This engineering decision made sense when the production of carbon dioxide greenhouse gasses was not a design constraint. A better understanding of global warming has changed this decision.

The movement to electric vehicles will have a profound effect on human behavior and travel patterns. Low-passenger vehicle, long-range commuting will become rare in the future.

Another impact on long-range commuting behavior will be the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic work-from-home behavior. Over a year of forced Zoom-meeting experience will permanently change the value of central office building space and the need to commute to work in single-passenger vehicles.

The combination of these two technological impacts will have a profound impact on capacity demand requirements. The Modal and Operational Alternatives of Traffic Demand Management and Bus Rapid Transit need deeper considerations in light of these significant technological changes. Supply and demand balance can be met using market forces at a relative low cost.

Economic theory has proved effective to reduce traffic congestion by adopting congestion-pricing on High Occupancy Toll lanes. Following successful implementations now used in Virginia, HOT lanes with congestion pricing deserve more attention.

Proposed congestion remediation on Interstate 270 and the Capital Beltway should be applied to the Route 50 corridor from the beltway to Queenstown.

Bridge traffic data shows that the increase in tolls to $6 significantly more than 10 years ago decreased demand and congestion. The reduction to $2 under Gov. Larry Hogan only encouraged increased single-passenger traffic congestion.

Today, tolls as high as $3.76 per mile are under consideration. The middle contra-flow lane on the Bay Bridge could be adopted to this means of decreasing delays for rush-hour and summer holiday traffic.

The recent upgrade to high-speed electronic toll collection has been the first step to adding this capability. The addition of more Bus Rapid Transit options from Queenstown to Washington DC and the Washington METRO system is also an easy upgrade.

Engineering analysis has shown that the bridge’s steel structure can be extended for about another 20 years. For the reasons I have discussed, the projection of future demand is very uncertain at this time.

In my opinion, the traffic growth predictions are not valid.

Until the relatively low-cost options of HOT lanes with congestion toll pricing are thoroughly examined, my vote will be to adopt the No-Build Alternative.