My opinion: we should replace the Key Bridge and Bay Bridge with tunnels

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

It is not 1960 it's 2024 and the costs are far different now. According to one poster a tunnel will cost 4 times as much as a bridge, my search said anywhere from twice to 3X. The new tolls will have to reflect this increase. As I said nobody will be willing to approve that, drivers will surely have a problem paying a toll 2-4X what they paid in the past and that's why it will never happen and is a bad idea IMO.

"It is not 1960 it's 2024 and the costs are far different now."

But the standard of livening ratios are the same.

What were salaries then and now?

What did gallon of milk cost then and now?

Etc., etc., etc.
"
https://www.mentalfloss.com › article › 62573 › what-hamburgers-and-milkshakes-cost-mcdonalds-1955

What Hamburgers and Milkshakes Cost at McDonald's in 1955

Kroc took out an ad in the Des Plaines Journal touting 15-cent hamburgers, 19-cent cheeseburgers, and 10-cent french fries and sodas"

"
https://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com › how-much-mcdonalds-hamburger

How Much Is McDonald's Hamburger Price? - Fast Food Menu Prices

Jan 22, 2024Today, the average cost of a McDonald's Hamburger in the United States stands at $2.54. Prices"

See my point?

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by bus man

I think that, instead of rebuilding the Key Bridge as a bridge, we should replace it with a twin bore tunnel, offering two lanes of traffic in both directions (i.e. same capacity as the former bridge). Also, given that we're starting to talk about what to do with the obsolescent Bay Bridge, I think we should replace it with a three-bore tunnel, offering a total of 6 lanes (one more than exists today).

Just think: if these crossings were served by tunnels instead of bridges, there would be no danger of ship collisions. Vertical clearance would no longer be an issue, so even the tallest ships (including the latest generation of cruise ships) could operate into Baltimore. There would be no need to worry about wind warnings or restrictions; no white-knuckle drives in heavy rainstorms; no worries about snow removal; and probably fewer scared drivers trying to cross. (Though there are probably some who are afraid of tunnels, so they'd be out of luck.)

But what about hazmats? Surely we don't want hazmat trucks sharing a tunnel with regular traffic. So here's how we handle that. On the Key Bridge, each bore is open to regular traffic (i.e. two lanes in each direction) between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., and again between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. During those hours, hazmats are not allowed but regular trucks would be. We'd probably need to build some kind of waiting area, like a rest area for trucks, so they can wait during those hours. During other hours, one bore is used for two-way traffic just for cars, while the other one is used for alternating two-way traffic for all trucks, hazmat and otherwise. Northbound trucks enter the tunnel from the top of the hour to 20 minutes past; 10 minutes to clear them out; then southbound trucks enter the tunnel from the bottom of the hour to 50 minutes past; then 10 minutes to clear them out. Repeat hourly. Having trucks go only one way at a time eliminates the possibility of head-on collisions.

For the Bay Bridge, the three bores would be used like this: one bore for westbound traffic and one bore for eastbound traffic at all times. The middle bore would operate westbound in the morning (say 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) and eastbound in the afternoon (2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) to handle peak-hour directional flows. Would probably need to be different on summer weekends to account for beach traffic flows. During the off hours, trucks would use the middle bore in a similar fashion to the Bay Bridge.

What do you think?

Too expensive, especially the Bay Bridge. Three tunnels probably about 7 miles long and maybe 300 feet deep. It could be done. There are longer deeper tunnels in the world, but it would cost big dollars. Really big dollars.

[skeddy]

I would leave the Bay Bridge as it is and construct another bay crossing in Calvert County Md.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by skeddy

I would leave the Bay Bridge as it is and construct another bay crossing in Calvert County Md.

Which doesn't have the infrastructure to handle the traffic and for which there is now no eastern terminus for the bridge.

We ****ed this County up enough on our own without having to have a bridge across the Bay built.

[skeddy]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

Which doesn't have the infrastructure to handle the traffic and for which there is now no eastern terminus for the bridge.

We ****ed this County up enough on our own without having to have a bridge across the Bay built.

not having the infrastructure never stopped anyone before.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by skeddy

not having the infrastructure never stopped anyone before.

Just like Rt. 50 crossing the bay.

[DaveinMtAiry]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"It is not 1960 it's 2024 and the costs are far different now."

But the standard of livening ratios are the same.

What were salaries then and now?

What did gallon of milk cost then and now?

Etc., etc., etc.
"
https://www.mentalfloss.com › article › 62573 › what-hamburgers-and-milkshakes-cost-mcdonalds-1955

What Hamburgers and Milkshakes Cost at McDonald's in 1955

Kroc took out an ad in the Des Plaines Journal touting 15-cent hamburgers, 19-cent cheeseburgers, and 10-cent french fries and sodas"

"
https://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com › how-much-mcdonalds-hamburger

How Much Is McDonald's Hamburger Price? - Fast Food Menu Prices

Jan 22, 2024Today, the average cost of a McDonald's Hamburger in the United States stands at $2.54. Prices"

See my point?

I do. And my point remains unchanged. Tax payers and commuters are not going to be willing to spend 2-4 times what it would cost to replace the bridge with a tunnel. A tunnel will also take longer to complete and they want to get that highway open as soon as possible.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

I do. And my point remains unchanged. Tax payers and commuters are not going to be willing to spend 2-4 times what it would cost to replace the bridge with a tunnel. A tunnel will also take longer to complete and they want to get that highway open as soon as possible.

How do you know any of your claims?

Have you talked with ANY of them about it in order to make such a claim?

If not, it is just your opinion.

Governments do things all the time people do not agree with.

Did you read my post on how the Chesapeake Bay tunnel in Va. was built?

It didn't cost taxpayers a DIME!

"Where there is a will, there is a way", as they say.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

I do. And my point remains unchanged. Tax payers and commuters are not going to be willing to spend 2-4 times what it would cost to replace the bridge with a tunnel. A tunnel will also take longer to complete and they want to get that highway open as soon as possible.

"Tax payers and commuters are not going to....."

Have you personally talked with every one of them in order for you to make such a claim and to speak for them?

I seriously doubt it.

We get this kind of claim on here a lot.

Posters claiming to know, as a FACT, what others want, think, etc., without actually talking with them on the issue.

Just because YOU might think that way does NOT mean ALL others do.

Not saying you are right or wrong, saying that you don't know what others think or would or would not do.

And as a teacher, I am surprised.

[MidValleyDad]

Originally Posted by NJ2MDdude

I agree with this position.

The short term plan may be to repair the bridge, add pier protection and require tug boat escort.

The long term plan may be to replace the bridge. I magine the state could build another tunnel or a bridge similar to the Woodrow Wison Bridge. But, in either case, it took many years of planning and construction.

Are you suggesting a drawbridge (aka Woodrow Wilson Bridge) to replace the FSK bridge, the bay bridge or both? Do you realize the difference in ship traffic requiring openings between the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the almost unused Potomac and the shipping route to one of the busiest ports in the U.S.? I suspect that the bridge would need to be open for ships over 16 hours a day no matter what kind of traffic management scheme were put in place.


As far as a tunnel instead of a bridge - dust off the geologic studies that were done before the FAK was built. There are subsurface conditions that mitigate against a tunnel. First of all the Ft McHenry tunnel is the LOWEST POINT ON THE ENTIRE INTERSTATE SYSTEM (road bed 95 feet below sea level if I remember correctly). Because the FSK is 'downstream' from that point the sub strata is even deeper, Also the FSK bridge (and the Bay Bridge) provide oversized and HAZMAT routes that would not be possible, or much more difficult, with tunnels.