In early January, I commented on a life-cycle analysis prepared by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) that stated that the excruciating back-ups that occur maddingly on summer weekends will happen daily by 2040 without the construction of additional lanes on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. That’s 24 short years from now.
The subject arose again at a recent meeting in Annapolis of the Eastern Shore Delegation. Prompted by Sen. Jim Mathias, who represents the Lower Shore and once served as mayor of Ocean City, the delegation agreed to urge the MdTA to put money aside for a federal environmental impact study. The state has to contribute to the cost of the study. Mathias has submitted a bill requiring MdTA to determine a cost estimate for the study.
I am not surprised that Sen. Mathias is concerned about the long back-ups faced by the motorists anxiously impatient to reach the beach and then return home. I wondered when public officials representing Maryland’s tourism mecca would scream for expansion or replacement of the existing spans.
The Bay Bridge already is outmoded. Traffic back-ups from the end of May to the beginning of September are unbearable. Patience must run awfully thin for frequent travelers—and restless children in the back seat.
My guess is that the cost of implementing one of four options would be at least $10 billion in today’s dollars. Options include building a new three-lane span; demolish the eastbound span and build a new five-lane structure; tear down the two existing spans and build a new eight-lane Bay Bridge or maintain the existing three-lane westbound span and wide and refurbish the existing two-lane eastbound span to three lanes.
Should a decision made today to begin the lengthy process of modernizing the Bay Bridge, I would bet that a completion date is at least 10-15 years away, if not more. A project of this size, complexity and cost defines the words “difficult” and “time-consuming.”
I applaud any sensible effort to move this massive project forward. Trite though it might sound, time is of the essence.
Maryland and Delaware beaches continue to beckon hundreds of thousands of visitors. The number of people driving to their second homes grows. Eastern Shore residents who commute to work on the Western Shore increase.
We have a transportation mess due to the limited capacity of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. Action is imperative, even if slow and deliberate.
**************************************
In late July 2015, I criticized the Pentagon for its proposed reduction of the Regular Army and the Army National Guard, complaining that the Department of Defense seemed focused more on weaponry and gadgetry than the retention of exceptional men and women in the uniformed services.
A letter to the editor rightly pointed out that Congress also deserves blame for mandating the acquisition of unnecessary equipment.
So, what’s my current gripe? The U.S. Air Force would like to eliminate the ugly but effective A-10 aircraft. The Maryland Air National Guard has 21 of these close-air support aircraft.
An article in The Baltimore Sun the past Sunday illustrated what I already knew. The U.S. Army infantry soldiers and the Marine Corps continue, as they have for years, to praise the low-flying A-10s. A Marine Corps gunnery sergeant described a perilous action in Afghanistan in 2008 when two A-10s provided air support that saved the lives of this gunnery sergeant and his Special Operations troops.
The Maryland Air National Guard’s 104th Fighter Squadron will deploy its A-10s this fall in the U.S.-led air campaign against the Islamic State. According to a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, A-10s have flown more than 3,500 sorties in support of Kurdish and Iraqi forces.
I am skeptical of the Air Force’s plan to replace the A-10s with the stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This apparently versatile aircraft has multiple missions. Close-air support is one of them. Where will this mission rank in the order of priorities?
No one aircraft will focus solely on supporting ground troops. Troops whose lives have been saved by A-10 firepower, delivered effectively by a fighter jet nicknamed the “Warthog,” have no voice in the decision to sideline this aircraft. That’s too bad.
I’ve often wondered about decisions concerning either acquiring and developing new weapons systems or mothballing existing ones that have proved valuable in combat. I still do.
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.
Jim Franke says
The following was posted as a news item on Senator Bernie Sanders website. “F-35s Former Sen. Larry Pressler asserted, in an interview on MSNBC, that F-35 fighter jets are being built because of support from Sen. Sanders. “That`s how our military industrial system works. In the Pentagon, all the generals object to this new weapon systems or many of them but the Congress keeps putting them in because Bernie Sanders. I`m not picking on Bernie Sanders, he`s a good guy. But both the left and the right support this military industrial state to an extent that is astounding. So — and the F-35 is obsolete today and there it go — is going into Burlington, Vermont with the support of, let`s say, more left congressional delegation up there who should be opposed to it.”