BAY BRIDGE – concerned? Use the info below to write a letter.

Dear Broadneck Residents,

This is a “Call to Action” message. Please help us.

The Bay Bridge Crossing Study is coming to an end. The Broadneck is in the crosshairs as the final location choice. But there is not enough information to know what they would do, or if doing it here would be the best interest of the Broadneck, or even the best outcome for Maryland. If this corridor is selected, then the Queen Anne’s County and Anne Arundel County Route 50/ 301 location will be the only site considered, no matter what future studies discover, now or in future decades.

The Broadneck Council of Communities (BCC) urges you to compose a letter from the snippets below and send it to the email list of elected officials to get their support for a true consideration of what is best for our state and for the Broadneck.

Once you send that letter, also submit it to the Study’s official comment form so it becomes part of the record. It is important that we give our allies a hook to hang a decision on that helps the Broadneck survive.

Build your letter (300-400 words) below!

– Broadneck Council of Communities
_______________________________

The Bay Bridge Crossing Study is inadequate. It has not given proper consideration to factors other than traffic volume. This Tier 1 NEPA study should be stopped until the critical issues outlined below have been properly studied and evaluated by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA). In short, the MDTA must not produce a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) until this is done.

– The primary issue is that the Purpose and Need is too limited. The Purpose and Need statement’s key metric of minimizing the congestion in Corridor #7 is procedurally and legally too limited in its objectives. There are two major failings of the Purpose and Need Statement and the NEPA Study:

1. A study of all the costs of the approach road corridors on either side of the potential crossing sites was not conducted. These important roadways/highways that feed traffic to/from the bridge must be studied and evaluated in any site selection process, but this key requirement was not included in this NEPA DEIS Report.

2. The Purpose and Need statement is poorly implemented. This is a critical piece of the report that allows for an informed selection. It must include not only traffic volume but requires the overall evaluation of the favorable and harmful effects on the region, our State capitol, the value of having multiple avenues of access across the Bay, and the effect on Baltimore/Washington commuters and those living on Eastern Shore of Maryland who don’t cross the bridge. Without this evaluation, the federal highway administration will not be able to tell if a proper selection has been made.

Additional Concerns:

– Anne Arundel County, the Broadneck Peninsula, and Queen Anne County would be the most affected communities in the 13 County NEPA study area that focuses solely on the selection of Corridor #7. It did not include any of the concerns or input by those entities when selecting Corridor #7.

– The NEPA study did not provide any information concerning the shore-side construction and quality of life impacts of selecting this corridor versus any other corridor.

– It did not indicate whether the proposed bridge would be a replacement bridge or a parallel and additional bridge. It is unrealistic to build a third span in Corridor 7, because it would be pointless to maintain two old bridges.

– The NEPA study did not indicate any of the Corridor #7 costs and timelines or impacts of huge infrastructure requirements to rebuild Kent Island roadways, Anne Arundel County roadways, Queen Anne County bridges, and Severn River bridges to accommodate a new Chesapeake Bay Bridge span and related traffic.

– This is a $5 billion+ proposed structure projected to last for 100 or more years with regional and multi-state transportation impacts. The Purpose and Need criteria presented in developing the objectives of the long-term impact of selecting the existing corridor, and excluding all other corridors, have not been sufficiently developed to execute a FEIS/Record of Decision.

– A myriad of unknowns have not been considered or revealed. The decision to lock in Corridor #7 for subsequent Tier 2 preliminary design work is premature without knowing and evaluating the extensive shore-side impacts:

• Will this be a parallel structure to the existing structure and maintain the existing structures?

• How many additional Bay crossing and support or safety lanes are required on this new bridge?

• How many additional lanes will be required on Route 50 west and east of the new structure to provide for the additional bridge lanes?

• Will the Severn River Bridge and the Kent Narrows Bridge require additional lanes when a new Chesapeake Bay bridge is in place?

• What happens to all of the parallel service roads, such as East College Parkway, Whitehall Road, and all of Route 18 on Kent Island?

• What will be the impact on feeder arterials, such as College Parkway, Route 2 North and Route 2 south, Route 8, and many other roads?

• What is an order of magnitude estimate of the Eminent Domain land-takes to accommodate a new bridge?

– No consideration is given to an alternative corridor placement for safety, evacuation, military action, or an alternative choice in the event the existing structure is damaged or blocked for any reason.

– No consideration of providing greater state-wide economic benefits and advantages in another corridor location were considered. Furthermore, the existing corridor is not the most direct path to the Eastern Shore’s Ocean City environs and attractions.

– A pause in the NEPA evaluation should be taken because the COVID pandemic has impacted traffic volume and travel patterns that may impact all projections of traffic volumes. And the data used for the traffic evaluation was inadequate, extremely limited to not much more than a one week snapshot in time, leaving the validity of traffic projections in considerable doubt.

The NEPA EIS/ROD decisions should be put on hold until a full complement of key issues are evaluated in this decision making process. The decision to select Corridor #7 is not simply a reduction of traffic on the existing structures. It requires the answers to the questions raised above which in fact may point to another alternative corridor. Another alternative may be the most logical, least disruptive, most cost-effective, most environmentally sound, and provide greater state-wide economic benefits.

Please have this process reconsidered and do it right.

Sincerely,

Name/Address

_________

Here are the email addresses so you may contact ALL of our Elected Officials to voice objection to the MDTA’s selection of the Route #50/301 Broadneck Peninsula location for the 3rd span of the Bay Bridge:

Email list (Copy and Paste):
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Contact forms:

US Senator Benjamin Cardin: https://www.cardin.senate.gov/contact
US Senator Christopher Van Hollen: https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/contact/email
US Representative Anthony Brown: https://anthonybrown.house.gov/contact
US Representative John Sarbanes: https://sarbanes.house.gov/contact
Governor Larry Hogan: https://governor.maryland.gov/contact-the-governor

FINALLY

Send your letter as a comment to the Bay Crossing Study site form so it is an official part of the record:
NEPA DEIS Comments: https://baycrossingstudy.com/public-involvement/deis-submit-comments

Anything you can do to help would be most appreciated. Thank you so much for helping get the word out!