The spans that one day could replace the Chesapeake Bay Bridge would likely each have four lanes, nearly doubling the road capacity on one of the state’s most recognizable crossings.

The Maryland Transportation Authority, which owns and maintains the state’s toll facilities, released its “state preferred alternative” for the bridge replacement Tuesday morning.

Under the proposal, the bridge approaches on both sides of the Chesapeake will remain unchanged. The authority chose not to continue with alternatives that would have widened U.S. 50/301 for miles to the east and west of the crossing, a proposal that many residents criticized.

The MDTA board will vote Thursday whether to adopt the recommendation of planners and engineers at its monthly meeting. The choice will then be subject to public comment and additional environmental review before it becomes official.

Many specifics remain unknown, but what’s certain is that the bridge “will be iconic,” said Bruce Gartner, the MDTA’s executive director.

The MDTA hopes to receive final approval for the alternative — including sign-off from the federal government on an environmental impact assessment — by November 2026, said Melissa Williams, the authority’s director of planning and program development. It could then pursue a bridge design.

Replacing the aging parallel structures, which carry roughly 27 million vehicles per year combined, will be one of Maryland’s most ambitious infrastructure projects to date once underway. Details like cost and construction timeline are only ballpark estimates at this stage.

Late last year, the MDTA announced six possible bridge configurations alongside a “no build” option for further study. Officials estimated at the time that it would cost roughly $7.3 billion to build the new structures. They also said the current bridges would require about $3.8 billion in upkeep over the next 40 years if the state chose not to pursue a replacement.

The authority, which is largely financially independent from the state’s transportation department that oversees it, pays for much of its own work from toll revenues. It will, however, likely pursue federal funding for a project of this scale.

The recommended alternative “best meets the purpose and need” of the corridor, Williams said.

It was the most modest among other proposals on the table that would have widened U.S. 50/301 by another lane or even constructed bridges carrying five travel lanes each.

The twin four-lane bridges will reduce the need for “contraflow”, or two-way traffic on the same span during peak travel times, and each have full-sized shoulders, Williams added.

Though it’s too early to set a timeline for construction, officials at least have a sense of the future order of operations.

Crews will first erect a new eastbound structure south of the original two-lane bridge, which opened to traffic in 1952. Once it is complete and in use, they will demolish the original span, then build the new westbound structure between where the two current bridges stand.

Once that’s built, the current three-lane structure will come down.

“The goal is not to reduce capacity during construction,” said Williams.

The future bridges will have at least 230 feet of vertical clearance over the water, giving them roughly the same clearance height as the future replacement to the Key Bridge, which carried Interstate 695 over the mouth of Baltimore’s harbor until it collapsed last year in a shipping accident. That will allow the Port of Baltimore to remain competitive with other East Coast ports as container ships continue to grow in size.

The inclusion of a shared-use pedestrian path is still on the table, Gartner said, and the state is continuing to explore options for expanding public transportation over the crossing.

The MDTA will host public hearings about the selection in January and plans to release information about them soon.

A “rough order of cost” will be available at the hearings, Gartner said.