Another Chesapeake Bay crossing needed now

The purpose of the Bay Crossing Tier 1, NEPA Study is to consider corridors for providing additional capacity and access across the Chesapeake Bay to improve mobility, travel reliability, and safety at the existing bridge” in design year 2040.

The Purpose and Need Statement for the study was not created in an open or inclusive manner that involved public discussion and input. As a result, a single Maryland Transportation Authority metric, “which alternative gave the greatest relief to traffic on the existing Bay Bridge,” was used to evaluate each alternate (corridor) bridge location.

It is obvious that the closer the alternate bridge is to the existing bay crossing the more traffic it will draw off. It is quite easy to select the two locations out of 14 candidates that are in closest proximity to the third location, the existing Bay Bridge. All three bridge locations are, in reality, only one corridor, Route 50/ 301.

While the term corridor is used extensively in the report, there is no analysis of any of the 14 “corridors” beyond projected traffic volume reductions on the existing bay crossing on a daily and weekend basis. The existing Bay Bridge is not a corridor. It is merely the weakest link within the existing 50/ 301 Corridor.

None of the other bridge locations consider the corridor beyond the connections to existing roads. This is essential in the most cursory of alternate corridor analyses.

Does the Tier 1 DEIS report represent a Corridor Analysis or more pointedly a traffic study of the existing bay crossing? If the latter, we very well might have all the justification we need to repair or replace the Chesapeake Bay bridges.

But we do not have even a minimal amount of knowledge to assess other corridors on their merits as well as their ability to drain off volumes from the existing Chesapeake Bay bridge on the 50/ 301 corridor.

I recommend the MDTA institute a pause sufficient in length to address and correct the issues presented above and not submit a record of decision until the Purpose and Need portion is extensively modified. Such modifications should include:

■ Undertake a true detailed analysis of the 50/ 301 corridor as a major component of the Tier 1 NEPA study. Understand the ramifications of corridor modifications and potential widening upon local access roads.

■ Create a Study Advisory Committee more inclusive of critical stakeholders to provide oversight during the “pause” and for the remainder of the Tier 1 NEPA study.

■ Utilize Kent Island traffic operations on Route 50/301 leading to the Bay Bridge as the testbed for the application of technologies to maximize throughput such that Route 50/ 301 is the quickest way to the bridge rather than Route 18 currently used to bypass 50/301 congestion. Consider a ban on truck traffic (over 5 tons) on Sundays during the summer between the hours of noon to midnight.

■ Recognize that the existing twin spans across the Chesapeake are substandard both in design and safety considerations; are over capacity with extensive queues on an increasing number of weekdays and weekends; regularly operate with a dangerous contra-flow on the westbound span during afternoon and evening peak travel periods; bring grid-lock to Kent Island during summer Sundays, have on-ramps right at the bridge approaches; and represent the only land access to hospital care for significant injuries and critical illnesses for Eastern Shore residents.

■ Recognize the need to immediately begin the planning process to identify a new more southerly corridor to serve the present and future mobility needs of the region. The completion of this second corridor and Bay crossing should precede modifications to or replacement of the existing twin spans.

Once there are two corridors across the bay, they will serve to balance each other in times of heavy travel demand, maintenance schedules, accidents, and unplanned incidents.