To mitigate traffic, repair the old Key Bridge for use while constructing its replacement | GUEST COMMENTARY

Despite unforeseen complexities related to the recovery of those who perished and the entanglement of the Francis Scott Key  Bridge with the ship that caused its collapse, transportation officials in Maryland expect to restore normal access to the Port of Baltimore in the next week or so, just two months after the maritime disaster.

While this is good news, the biggest challenge still lies ahead: replacing the damaged bridge.

The Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) intends to spend close to $2 billion for the design and construction of a completely new replacement bridge, which was music to the ears of those in the engineering and construction industry. Infrastructure builders were also likely pleased to hear that the bridge-building team is to be selected quickly using a subjective process that will not require them to commit to a competitive price — or even a firm schedule for replacing the bridge. Instead, the state will reimburse the selected team for their engineering and estimating costs, plus profit, over many months, to arrive at an acceptable negotiated price and schedule for building the new bridge.

While this plan was great news for the contractors, it was bad news for commuters, truckers and other motorists who travel the major highways and secondary roads into and near the Port of Baltimore. It was also bad news for businesses who rely on timely ground shipment of goods to and from the port. This is because, if all goes according to MDTA’s very preliminary plans, the new bridge will not open to traffic until fall of 2028.

To its credit, MDTA is evaluating every possible option to improve current congestion problems. These include reconfiguring traffic flow at the Fort McHenry Tunnel Toll Plaza and diverting some trucks to a ramp near the north side of the harbor. However, the effectiveness of such options will likely be marginal. This means that motorists can expect only limited relief from their current torturous daily drives for at least the next four years.

What MDTA has apparently overlooked is the most effective congestion mitigation measure of them all: an accelerated repair and reopening of the current bridge as a temporary bypass until a replacement is in operation. The repair of the existing bridge can be completed and opened to traffic in a fraction of the estimated time to build a new bridge and at a reasonable cost.

How, you wonder, is that possible?

The much smaller scope, cost and schedule of a repair can be determined with far greater accuracy and confidence (less risk) than current estimates for an entirely new bridge whose characteristics have yet to be defined. If the repaired structure were treated as a temporary bypass, there would be other cost savings as well — no architectural lighting, no regular painting, minimal to no need for extensive engineering designs (perhaps using prior as-builts), environmental approvals, permits or design reviews by outside agencies.

The repair work can be carried out by building modular bridge sections off-site that can be barged to the Harbor and lifted into place, significantly reducing construction time. And, the repair contractor can be selected by competitive low bid with a hard completion schedule and an allowance for necessary investigations and testing of those sections of the bridge that were not destroyed by the ship strike.

Under its current plan, MDTA will put itself under intense time pressure to complete the new bridge as quickly as possible to relieve traffic congestion. This time pressure will make it difficult to terminate the initial selected contractor if a fair negotiated construction price and/or a fixed completion date cannot be agreed upon.

Delays to expedited design reviews and permit approvals by other agencies who are not contractually committed to the rapid MDTA schedule could have an exaggerated negative financial and schedule impact on the construction cost of the new bridge. Why? Because the contractor will have an oversized level of staff and equipment mobilized on-site to meet MDTA’s very aggressive completion schedule. These and related factors will increase the likelihood of design and construction errors, construction cost increases and schedule delays. Also, requiring long-term overtime to recover likely schedule delays is always expensive and inefficient.

In addition, because of time pressure created under the current plan, MDTA will apparently need to commit to building the new bridge in exactly the same location as the original bridge. While this constraint could hopefully reduce the time required for environmental reviews, it will also rule out other, potentially more cost-effective design options for the new bridge.

By comparison, using a bridge repair/bypass scheme and its resultant accelerated traffic-congestion solution, the MDTA could proceed at an orderly pace with the design, approval and construction of an optimal, more cost-effective, 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 a replacement bridge, and any delays to completion of the new bridge that might occur would not impose congestion impacts on area traffic.  Finally, more years of toll revenue from the repaired bridge (due to its rapid reopening) will provide many millions of dollars that can be used to substantially defray the costs of the repaired bridge.

As a final thought, any lingering concern about the risk of collision to a temporary bypass bridge can be mitigated by changes to harbor operating procedures, including operating the bypass bridge as a “virtual draw bridge,” stopping traffic when ships pass underneath if deemed necessary.

Dealing with an unexpected disaster, such as the sudden loss of this bridge, creates a very complicated decision tree. Action is required quickly, and one of the obvious considerations is the risk of losing federal support if construction of a new bridge does not commence right away.

However, the Baltimore region is suffering from a very severe reduction in mobility. While we fully appreciate the MDTA’s challenges, it seems to us that the most effective forward plan for travelers and taxpayers would be to recover regional mobility loss as quickly and cost-effectively as possible with a temporary bypass bridge to gain adequate, unpressured time to carefully plan, design and construct the next generation Baltimore Harbor replacement bridge.

Edward McSpedon (edwardm.IDS@gmail.com) is CEO of Infrastructure Delivery Strategies LLC. Peter Vanderzee (pvanderzee@ lifespantechnologies.com) is president and CEO of LifeSpan Technologies.