Two of the leading traffic engineering firms in this country have
categorically stated that for the present, construction of a parallel bridge
will meet the needs of more people for a longer time at a lower cost than
at either of the alternative locations. Other studies made by the State
Roads Commission have confirmed these opinions. In fact, this problem
has already been the subject of more studies, more analysis, more evalua-
tion and more expert opinion than any other subject during my
Administration. Additional studies will only consume money and time—
the first of which we can ill afford, and the second of which will be
irretrievably lost while the problem becomes increasingly acute.

Finally, in my judgment, one thing is clear. Whether during my
Administration, or the next, or the one that follows, a bridge will be
built across the Bay between Sandy Point and Kent Island. If this neces-
sary public work is delayed and if the economy of the entire State
thereby suffers as a result, let no one say that the fault was fixed with
this Administration. Let the fault lie where it belongs—with those who
for selfish and political reasons are attempting to block this much
needed public improvement.

STATEMENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF A
SECOND CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE

ANNAPOLIS
June 23, 1966

At the 1966 session of the General Assembly this Administration
supported two bills which it considers vital to rapid and orderly growth
of greater Baltimore's road network, namely—Senate Bill 153, authoriz-
ing a parallel crossing of the Chesapeake Bay. This bill also included
authorization of other Bay crossings, which would include the northern
crossing, and Senate Bill 359, authorizing an additional harbor tunnel.

As you are aware, Senate Bill 153 appears headed for a referendum in
November. On the other hand, Senate Bill 359 has been enacted into
law. Accordingly, I have directed the State Roads Commission to imme-
diately activate the harbor tunnel project by preparing construction

594