Nov 12, 2008 4:16 pm US/Eastern
WJZ Viewers Weigh In On Bay Bridge Safety Concerns
BALTIMORE (WJZ) ―
WJZ viewers talk about their suggestions or concerns about the Bay Bridge.
"Instead of spending many dollars on accident proofing the bridge, maybe money should be spent on educating the drivers and vehicle inspections laws to keep vehicles safe and [giving] unexperienced drivers knowledge on being safe drivers." -- Carol Bailey from Elkridge
"I agree that Maryland may eventually need a third span to the Bay Bridge, but I hope the state builds it adjacent to the existing spans so it does not destroy more of Maryland's beautiful wetlands and undeveloped rural areas that surround the wetlands and waterways." -- Robert Edwards from Essex
"
Don't ask me, at age 62, I will likely be dead before it is built. Also, don't ask the voters either on a state-wide referendum as that was done in the late 1960s and they said NO. But our governor at the time, Spiro T. Agnew, built it anyway because he said it would be needed in the near future. That's why I call the 2nd span the Agnew bridge and the state should too, or at least acknowledge this fact. Democrats giving credit to a Republican in Maryland will happen only when the Bay freezes solid and one can drive across." -- James Adam from White Marsh
"It's not the age, the width or length of the twin spans that have caused the latest deadly accidents. If drivers would obey the speed limits, put down their cell phones and stop text-messaging for the amount of time it takes to cross the bay then there would be no accidents at all. If drivers care so little about life and of that of those also crossing the bridge then I suggest that they stop in the middle and jump over. The bridges are over 50 and 30 years old, how many deadly accidents have occurred in the years, more or less than on 695 or 95? Just because in the past year there's been two major accidents we now want to build a new bridge, why are we not building a new Beltway or interstate? My suggestion is to have police patrol the bridge during peak hours and times, place officers on the bridge to monitor drivers and if they are misbehaving then radio ahead and pull those drivers over once they cross. Enforcing the driving laws is the answer that will save lives, not building another bridge. O'Malley said that in time we will need to replace the twin spans because of age, so when is NY replacing the Brooklyn or GW Bridge or California the Golden Gate?" -- Chuck
"I have always thought that it was foolish to "place all of our eggs in one basket", so to speak - and not have at our disposal an alternate means of crossing the Bay. I strongly urge that a system of huge, high-tech, high-speed, fast-docking ferries - such as those operated by Blue Star Ferries (www.bluestarferries.com) in Greece [and seen in the http://mykmarkos.camstreams.com webcam] be considered as an alternative (and much more enjoyable, cruise-like) choice." -- Thomas Maxon from Baltimore
"Mayor Martin O'Malley said that the eastern shore doesn't want all this traffic in our backyards. I live on the eastern shore and on any given Saturday in the summer months it is impossible to get anywhere on Rt. 50, so I really don't think that should be an issue with the building of a new bridge. Using the Bay Bridge myself I would rather have a safe structure to cross, then worry about traffic in my backyard, that to me has always and will always be a problem new bridge or not." -- Michelle from Chestertown
"This is a toll facility. There should be no reason that toll-backed bonds can pay for a new bridge. O'Malley's concerns about how to pay for the bridge are unfounded. It is pretty clear from a safety standpoint that the bridge needs to be replaced. Out of respect for those who live on the Eastern Shore and in order to contain sprawl and further congestion, a 10-lane behemoth is probably not the answer. Perhaps a 6-lane cable-stayed bridge with 12 foot shoulders is what this state needs. They can build it right next to the existing structures and then demolish the old ones." -- Jim Brennan from Baltimore
"I dread driving over that bridge! With a lot more cars on the road these days, it's frightful driving over it. Traffic should not be allowed to drive over on one lane with oncoming traffic in the lane right next to it. It's just way too freaky! I did it one time, by accident, and was almost hyperventilating and praying to God that I would make it over. Now, I stay all the way to the right so I don't get caught in the lane that goes over the 3 laned bridge with oncoming traffic in the left lane. I'd feel better if there was higher barriers on the bridge as well and speed limit should be lowered as well. Bring back the ferries!!" -- Wendy from Columbia
"The current bridge is fine, but getting overcrowded. If a new bridge is built, it should be a northern Bay crossing like Eastern Balt. Co. to Whitehall, or So. Maryland to alleviate Washington/E. Shore traffic." -- Tom Novak from Pasadena
"I have been commuting over the bridge for 15 years. I think the bridges have their structural issues, but I don't believe the structural issues are responsible for any of the tragic accidents. The past traffic accidents are due in most part to driver error and irresponsibility. I have no fear of the bridge, but I do fear impatient or substance impaired drivers!" --Sonnie Kelly from Chester
"It is time for a new bridge, but the new bridge should be built further north. Route 50 is already overcrowded." --Jim Samm from Rosedale
"I live on Kent Island and I am concerned about being stuck on Kent Island every weekend in the summer. When we have an emergency, we cannot get to the hospital. The bay needs another bridge that does not come through Kent Island. We have done our share of giving for the greater good. It's someone else's turn. Build a new bridge north or south, either will alleviate some of the traffic here. Maintaining the old bridges is also a concern. It should not take two major accidents in one year to get the bridge back into a condition that is safe." --WJZ Viewer
"When the 1st bridge was built as a two-lane structure with no emergency lanes, there was no provision for space to navigate in the event that a vehicle would experience a flat tire, mechanical breakdown, be involved in an accident, or for repair and maintenance of the structure. When the 2nd bridge was built as a three lane structure (what could they have possibly been thinking??!!), there was no provision for safe two-way traffic even though there was common knowledge that both bridges would eventually need maintenance and repairs, and the obvious fact that traffic would continue to increase. Yes, there are dangerous drivers, and that needs to be addressed, but there are also dangerous bridges, and we have somehow managed to build two of them. Isn't it possible to build a safe structure with a center barrier to ward off head on collisions, emergency lanes for the obvious reason, and an adequate number of lanes to match the existing number of connecting highway lanes at either end of the span? Maybe with a third try (and a little common sense) we could get it right this time." -- WJZ Viewer From The Eastern Shore
(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
Stumble It!
