February 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 27

The selected design included
a dedicated bicycle/pedestrian
(bike/ped) path separated from
the vehicular traffic by a barrier.
In 2019,
the
bridge design
changed and did not include a
separated bike/ped lane. The new
design for the built bridge has four
12-foot lanes, including one lane
in each direction that cyclists may
share with vehicles. Demolition
of the old bridge was scheduled to
commence immediately after the
new bridge opened.
Because the new bridge did not
have a separated path for cyclists
and pedestrians, as contemplated
by the original 2012 design, plaintiffs
opposed demolition of the
Historic Nice Bridge. According to
plaintiffs, the Historic Nice Bridge
was the only remaining viable option
for a safe bike and pedestrian
passage over the Potomac River.
In the absence of a dedicated
bike/ped lane,
plaintiffs claimed
the new bridge does not allow for
a safe Maryland/Virginia connection
for cyclists and pedestrians
who want to access the historic
trails on both sides of the bridge.
Moreover,
plaintiffs argued local
communities, particularly minority
communities in Charles County,
Maryland, needed a dedicated
bike/ped path for recreational access
to Section 4(f) and Section 6(f)
park resources in Virginia.
Further, plaintiffs claimed demolition
of the Historic Nice Bridge
would cause them irreparable harm
(a requirement for a preliminary injunction)
because the bridge could
be the last opportunity to ensure
safe crossing of the Potomac River
and access to recreational resources
at a reasonable cost. Accordingly,
plaintiffs petitioned the federal disEnvironmental
Assessments
In
2006, the Maryland Transportation
Authority (MDTA) began
planning for improvements to the
Historic Nice Bridge. Members of
the public and other state agencies
had asked MDTA to include
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in
the bridge improvement analysis.
Seven alternates were retained for
detailed study, including four that
replaced the old bridge or removed
it from service.
In 2009, MDTA published an
Environmental Assessment (EA)
and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
for improvements to the Historic
Nice Bridge that analyzed the
seven retained
alternate
plans.
Each included a barrier-separated
bicycle/ped path option. For all
alternatives, the separate bike/ped
path option added to the overall
construction and maintenance cost
and increased some of the environmental
impact measures assessed.
In an October 2012 Finding
Significant
of No
Impact
(FONSI) and Final Section 4(f)
Evaluation, the Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
and
MDTA issued reports adopting
the MDTA-preferred alternative
to build a new four-lane bridge to
the north of the old bridge with a
separated two-way path for cyclists
and pedestrians on one side of the
bridge. In addition, MDTA would
demolish the Historic Nice Bridge
following the opening of the
new bridge. FHWA approved the
FONSI in November 2012.
trict court to issue a preliminary injunction
to prevent the demolition
of the Historic Nice Bridge pending
additional environmental review.
Project Re-evalution
In 2015, MDTA evaluated performance-based
practical design strategies
for the project, resulting in
a " modified design configuration
that meets the objectives of the project
Purpose and Need and achieves
significant project savings. " These
savings, in turn, " made this project
financially viable for construction
sooner, providing safety and congestion
relief that is needed now. "
Under the new design, however,
the bridge would include a shared
bike lane in each direction, not a
barrier-separated bike/ped path.
In February 2019, MDTA submitted
to FHWA a re-evaluation
under the National Environmental
Policy Act (Re-evaluation) to determine
if, in light of the current
updated bridge design, the 2012
FONSI and Final Section
4(f)
Evaluation remained valid.
Regarding the options for bicycle
access, the Re-evaluation
explained that " bicycle access is
currently prohibited on the Nice
Bridge, and this prohibition will be
lifted on the new bridge. " Further,
MDTA would " evaluate the design/build
proposals to determine
a separated path on a cost-benefit
basis. " Based upon expected usage,
MDTA found a separated path
would add more than $70 million
to the project's projected costs and
the construction cost per average
daily path user would be $1.3 million.
Construction began on the
new bridge in 2020.
Old Bridge Conversion
On July 14, 2022, U.S. Senators
Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen
and Congressman Steny Hoyer,
all from Maryland, asked MDTA
to allow time for an independent
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | FEBR U AR Y 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
27
February 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of February 2023 - Parks & Recreation
