A Better Road Ahead for Baltimore Harbor Traffic

Edward McSpedon, PE

(Edited & published in the Baltimore Sun jointly with Peter Vanderzee 5-23-24)

Despite unforeseen complexities related to recovery of those who perished and complex entanglement of the collapsed structure with the ship that caused the incident, Maryland Officials now expect to be able to fully reopen the Baltimore Harbor Channel to Commercial Ship traffic by the end of May, about 9 weeks after the Maritime Disaster that destroyed the Main Span of the Francis Scott Key Bridge.

While this is great news for maritime traffic, the biggest challenge still lies ahead.

On May 7th the Maryland Transportation Authority announced its’ going-forward plans for the damaged bridge. MDTA intends to spend something of the order of $2 Billion Dollars for the design and construction of a completely new replacement bridge using a progressive design-build process. The Bridge building team will be selected quickly based upon qualifications and will not be required to commit to a competitive price nor to a firm schedule for replacing the bridge at this time. ?Instead, the State will reimburse the selected team for months of engineering and estimating costs plus profit, in an effort to arrive at a satisfactory negotiated price and schedule for building the new bridge.

While this plan ?was great news for the contractors, it was not such great news for Commuters, Truckers and other motorists who travel the Major Highways and Secondary Roads into and near the Port of Baltimore.

?

This is because the new bridge plan will not offer substantial congestion relief to the current torturous daily plight of Harbor Area Travelers and their stakeholders until Fall of 2008 when the new bridge will open for service…if all goes according to very preliminary plans.

In the meantime, MDTA proposes to develop and to implement whatever temporary congestion mitigation measures might be possible to reduce the pain to traffic in and around the Port Area. Some of the plans being considered include reconfiguring traffic flow at the Ft. McHenry Tunnel Toll Plaza and diverting some trucks to a ramp near the north side of the harbor.

?What is missing from this plan, however, is by far the most effective congestion mitigation measure of them all……accelerated repair and reopening of the existing Key Bridge as a temporary bypass until a new replacement bridge is in operation.

?This is especially significant because:

·??????? The repair of the existing bridge can be completed and opened to traffic in a fraction of the estimated time of building a new bridge and at a reasonable cost. The Washington Post has estimated that replacing the entire FSK Bridge would cost $316M in today’s dollars. Repairing the damaged main span should cost far less.

·??????? The much smaller scope, cost and the schedule of this repair can be determined with far greater accuracy and confidence (less risk) than current estimates for an entire new bridge whose characteristics have not even been defined yet.

·??????? If the repaired structure were treated as a” Temporary FSK Bypass” there would be other cost savings as well… no architectural lighting nor regular painting, etc.

·??????? The repair could be completed with minimal to no need for new design, environmental approvals, permits, or design reviews by outside agencies.

·??????? The repair contractor could be selected by “competitive low-bid” with a “hard completion schedule” and an allowance for necessary investigations and testing of those substantial sections of the existing bridge that were not destroyed by the ship strike.

·??????? Additionally, the FSK Bypass would be able to generate new toll revenues that can help to offset construction costs.

The current MDTA plan is also not great news for Federal and Local Taxpayers who will pay for the final cost of the new bridge.

·??????? Because any temporary “traffic management solution” to current congestion will have limited positive impact, the MDTA will be under intense public pressure to complete the new bridge as quickly as possible.

·??????? Schedule concerns will make it difficult to terminate the contractor and go out for new competition if a fair negotiated construction price and / or a fixed completion date cannot be agreed to.

·??????? Schedule pressures will also increase the possibility of design and/or construction errors as well as worker injuries.

·??????? Any delays to expedited design reviews and permit approvals by other agencies (who are not contractually committed to the rapid MDTA schedule), will have exaggerated negative financial and schedule impacts on the construction of the new bridge because the contractor will have an oversized level of staff and equipment mobilized on-site to meet their very aggressive contractual deadlines. Requiring long term overtime to recover schedule delays is always expensive, inefficient and less safe.

·??????? Limited pre-construction planning time as well as physical limitations imposed upon the new bridge in order to meet Federal Requirements for expedited environmental approvals (i.e. having to build within the physical footprint of the original FSK Bridge) ?may rule out some of the most cost-effective bridge design & construction options. In his book “How Big things Get Done”, internationally recognized mega-project delivery consultant, Bent Flyvbjerg, cites inadequate planning time as the primary causeof infrastructure construction cost overruns.

By contrast, with an FSK repair underway, the MDTA could proceed at an orderly pace with the planning, design, approval and construction of the optimal, most cost effective, defensible, resilient, efficient to maintain and aesthetically pleasing ?long term bridge solution for the Baltimore Harbor. The repair work itself would not delay the construction of the new replacement bridge and any delays to completion of the new bridge that might occur would not impose added congestion impacts on area traffic.

Understandably, dealing with an unexpected disaster such as occurred on March 26th of this year creates a very complicated “Decision Tree” going forward. Action is required quickly and one of the obvious considerations is the risk of losing Federal financial support if construction of a new bridge does not commence right away but Washington should be supportive of a sound management approach that reduces risk and that delivers early congestion relief.

There may also be a lingering concern about the risk of casualties and reputational damage in the unlikely event that a repaired FSK Bypass were struck again by a wayward ship. This small, temporary risk can be further reduced, if deemed necessary, by changing operational rules for large ships ?& for bridge traffic until the new bridge is in service. For example the FSK Bypass could be operated as a “Virtual Draw Bridge” by temporarily stopping traffic from crossing the bridge for a few minutes when large ships are approaching.

As we know, the letter “T” in MDTA and in MDOT and in USDOT stands for transportation…… aka mobility. ?And right now the Baltimore Harbor region is suffering from a severe reduction in mobility.? It would therefore seem that the right going forward plan should seek to recover this mobility loss as quickly and as completely as possible while simultaneously advancing a well-planned and well designed “Next-Gen” Harbor Crossing