For those frustrated by today's delays crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, Maryland transportation officials have a sobering message: The future looks far, far worse.
Two decades from now, daily traffic is expected to increase by more than 40 percent, creating weekday commutes to rival those on the Capital Beltway and weekends with as much as 12 hours of congestion a day in summer.
State Transportation Secretary Robert L. Flanagan shared those findings from a new study yesterday as he announced the formation of a task force that will look for solutions, including new bridge spans across the bay.
"It's definite that we need new capacity," Flanagan said. "We're open to all feasible alternatives."
Flanagan said he did not want to limit the work of the panel, which will start meeting in spring, but he said options are likely to include additional spans along Route 50, a second bridge across the bay at another location or even tunneling, if it is found to be feasible.
Flanagan acknowledged that any construction, which would require state and federal approval, could take years to bring to fruition. The replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the southern side of the Beltway, he pointed out, has taken more than 15 years to complete.
"We're taking the first steps here," Flanagan said. "We're getting the ball rolling."
The first of the Bay Bridge's two 4.3-mile spans opened in 1952. The two-lane bridge was hailed as an engineering marvel that made the splintered state whole. By 1973, so many people were crossing it that a second span, this one three lanes wide, was added.
More than 25 million vehicles crossed the bridge last year -- up from 1.1 million the year it opened. It remains the only real option to get to and from the Eastern Shore.
The closest alternative is about 65 miles north, near the Delaware line. To the south, drivers would have to travel nearly four hours to cross the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel at the far southern tip of Virginia's portion of the Eastern Shore.
With increased traffic, the study noted, have come more accidents, particularly rear-end collisions. During the three-year study period, 402 accidents occurred on the bridge and the roads leading to it.
The study also highlighted a looming repair headache: Current trends suggest that the eastbound span will need major rehabilitation between 2015 and 2020. That could require long-term lane closures or complete nighttime closures on the span, the study said.
Inconveniences caused by the most recent repaving on the bridge would pale by comparison. That work, on westbound lanes, was prompted by a botched job that left serious cracks in pavement laid as part of a four-year construction project.
A consultant's study ordered by Flanagan is due next month, but maneuvering to avoid blame has already begun among contractors and subcontractors involved. The fix is expected to cost the state more than $7 million.
Yesterday, a lawyer for Pioneer Contracting Co. of Odenton, a subcontractor on the project, released a January 2002 memo in which a manager for the company warned that using a chemical as directed could break the bond between layers of concrete. The details of the memo were reported yesterday by the Baltimore Sun.
A state engineer rejected the request not to use the chemical. "Contractor shall use both the restorer and bonding agent as specified. Has been done [with] success on numerous projects," wrote transportation authority engineer David A. LaBella.
Flanagan called the Pioneer correspondence "a memo that appears to be relevant in the search for the truth," but he added: "We don't want to overly focus on any particular theory of what occurred."
Flanagan also noted that Pioneer is a subcontractor "who wants to assert the fact that they are not responsible for the problem."
