opened to traffic the following day. The approved bridge design has several design alterations which shave more than $200 million from the originally projected price of around $1 billion, allowing Governor Hogan to shift his support in favor of the bridge. One of the major redesign choices was the removal of the multi-use path for pedestrians and bicycles, citing low projected usage; in its stead, Will Pines, chief engineer of the MDTA, states that the bridge will be open for cyclists to share the lane with motor vehicles, similar to the present arrangement on the Thomas J. Hatem Bridge on US 40. The old bridge is planned to be demolished and converted into an artificial reef that can provide new shelter for marine life in the river. Bike lane exclusion and old bridge demolition controversies House majority leader Steny Hoyner, along with Maryland senators Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen, objected to plans to demolish the old bridge following the new one's completion, suggesting an independent study be conducted to explore the possibility that the old bridge itself could be used for recreational and bike traffic, but Transportation Secretary Jim Ports countered by contending that financial and logistical challenges were too great to keep the old bridge in place. However, bicycle advocacy groups, which include Potomac Heritage Trail Association, Dahlgren Railroad Heritage Association and Oxon Hill Bicycle and Trail Club, allege in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, that state agencies, including the MDTA, violated state and federal environmental review laws by changing the project from its original conception and failing to study the impact of demolishing the bridge. The groups, who are asking for a temporary restraining order, to halt the demolition, also allege that the authority lacks the power to destroy the bridge under environmental laws, stating in a complaint, "Using explosives to demolish parts of the Historic Nice Bridge or the rubble from the bridge to create a 'reef' has not been evaluated appropriately for the impact on the natural habitat and human environment, including the taking of endangered species or disruption of their habitats." The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants never considered the “cumulative effects” of the construction plan and the potential demolition of the old bridge on human, environmental and historic resources, as well as on publicly or privately owned landmark sites listed or eligible for inclusion