Planning for the Future of the Bay Bridge- Now is the Time

The planning of the future of the Bay Bridge is at issue. The lead time for replacing a span, here or elsewhere is a truly massive undertaking that requires decades of planning and preparation. We can not wait to feel the full brunt of the coming pain in our area before we demand the needed planning. We need to start now. Below is a commentary by Broadneck resident, Transportation expert, and BCC Director, Bill Nevel. He has much to say on the matter:

The Bay Bridge issue is complex, its long term, its not evident today and the solution will be long term and costly, but it should have huge beneficial impacts here, in the region and statewide. It’s complicated by the fact that the toll authority (MdTA) is in denial. Whether traffic increases by 1.6 percent annually as the MdTA predicts or 2.9 percent annually as historically has occurred prior to the 2008/2009 Great Recession doesn’t really matter. It’s more than we can accommodate. The problem is that it is not evident today( in fact that has been one of the benefits of the Great Recession), but all of the reputable forecasters predict 6-10 mile backups, first on the weekends and eventually, daily. It may take 10 or more years, but by then if the planning is not on-going, it will be too late.

Broadneck’s problem is that the congestion not only impacts Route 50 and the bridge approach roads, but it impacts the access and public safety(EMS, fire, police) on the service and local roads. Convenient access to business, schools, churches, recreational places, i.e., the quality of life will all suffer. In some cases, without exaggeration, it could be a matter of life or death.

The mandatory NEPA studies to detail the problem, develop alternatives, define costs, and arrive at solutions will take years to complete. The process is transparent and involves many impacted agencies, both land and water based. Presently there is legislation to initiate this planning process, SB 56, but it is opposed by the toll authority, the MdTA. The Authority believes it will negatively impact their bond-holders obligations. I have trouble believing that the study process and the cost which could be $30 million over 5 or 6 years will have any impact on the bondholders. The bondholders obligation authority is now in the range of $2.2-3 billion dollars. Yes, construction cost will impact the bondholders, but that is years away and there are many ways to deal with this. No question, financing will be challenging, but financial engineering efforts should parallel the physical environmental/engineering efforts and be initiated and/or related to the enabling SB 56 legislation.

The legislators, county officials, and media must know we are concerned and are seeking action this year. Public safety should trump bondholder concerns, but that both will be served by this mandatory planning process.

The recent series of articles in The Capital in concert with the serious thrust in the state senate (SB 56) provides a great opportunity to get action this year to initiate this mandatory planning process.

Bill Nevel
BCC Board of Directors