Congestion at the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel is projected to grow so severe in the coming decade that rush-hour traffic jams may persist through much of the workday.
So why do highway planners favor spending $4.2 billion to build a new harbor crossing while doing little to improve the span that’s already overwhelmed?
Peninsula lawmakers who are vexed by that question have once again introduced legislation calling for the state to expand the Hampton Roads tunnel, despite years of study concluding that the other project, which has come to be known as the “third crossing,” is the best solution.
“Citizens don’t understand why they’re not expanding it,” said Del. Phil Hamilton, R-Newport News, who has introduced a bill calling for a wider Hampton Roads tunnel along with changes to how the region’s new transportation authority operates.
“It’s the primary choke point for them going to the south side,” he said. “The citizens on the Peninsula don’t see any reason for the third crossing.”
Del. Thomas Gear, R-Hampton, also has introduced a bill this year to expand the tube. It’s a version of the same one he put in last year. It was tabled then and is likely to die again this year, as is Hamilton’s.
But the bills raise an important question: If the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel is so crowded, then why not expand it?
The short answer, transportation planners argue, is that a wider tunnel would not go far enough to address the region’s long-term transportation problems.
Arthur L. Collins, acting executive director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority, has for a decade defended the decision to bypass a bigger Hampton Roads tunnel in favor of the more expensive project. “If a region gets to make an investment like this once every 100 years, then it ought to build in as many alternative options into that solution as that money will permit you to do,” Collins said.
The planned third crossing would actually involve several projects, including:
n A new set of tunnels paralleling the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel.
n The widening of Interstate 664 on the Peninsula and in South Hampton Roads to Bowers Hill.
n A new connecting highway from the south island of the Monitor-Merrimac tunnel that would run east, past Craney Island and under the Elizabeth River at the Norfolk Naval Station, to I-564.
n A spur leading from that connection to the Western Freeway.
Collins said that while expanding the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel would increase that span’s capacity, it would ignore other needs, especially improved access to the region’s marine terminals.
“If you improve HRBT, you would still have two-thirds of the traffic going through it,” Collins said. “If there was a problem there, say an accident, then the only option is to sit and wait for it to clear, or go all the way around to I-664 and go up the back side.”
In the mid-1990s, when daily trips through the Hampton Roads tunnel averaged about 73,000 vehicles, engineers were predicting those numbers would top 118,000 by 2018. They used those estimates as part of the argument for adding capacity to the harbor crossings.
Today their concerns appear to have been largely borne out, with average daily volumes hitting 92,000 vehicles and topping 100,000 during major summer holidays, according to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
When traffic gets that heavy, delays become inevitable. And even minor accidents make things worse.
But a wider Hampton Roads tunnel has its attractions.
With two new eastbound and two new westbound lanes, the number of vehicles per lane could drop 40 percent, according to an environmental impact statement on the projects, while the third crossing would reduce congestion at the Hampton Roads span by 17 percent.
A wider Hampton Roads tunnel also would be cheaper to build. The environmental document estimated the cost at $1.2 billion. Extend I-564 under the Elizabeth River to the south island of the Monitor-Merrimac tunnel, and the price rises to $2.1 billion, the report said – still less than the $4.2 billion for the entire proposed third crossing.
But widening the Hampton Roads tunnel would do relatively little for the marine terminals – a fact Hamilton acknowledges even as he argues for that approach. “They’re thinking of port development,” he said, “but people are sitting in traffic at the Hampton tunnel. That’s the real issue.”
Hampton Roads’ growing port must have access to free-flowing transportation networks because of its financial significance, said Jeff Keever, deputy executive director of the Virginia Port Authority .
The port generated $41 billion in economic activity in Virginia in 2006, according to a study released in January by the Mason School of Business’ Compete Center at the College of William and Mary .
In Hampton Roads, that worked out to $1.2 billion in sales, income and property taxes, or roughly $1 of every $18 raised through those three government revenue sources, the report said.
Freight moving into or out of the authority’s cargo terminals generated 340,000 jobs , roughly 9 percent of Virginia’s total work force, the study said.
Such figures have prompted some critics to complain that if transportation is so important to port interests, then they should help pay for the third crossing.
Keever said the Port Authority has committed at least $200 million to building a rail and road segment that would run from I-564 east to the Western Freeway. “I think people understand the need for another crossing,” Keever said. “The challenge has been that even if we were to start tomorrow, it will be years before they see anything.”
A wider Hampton Roads tunnel also would take a heavy toll on homes along Willoughby Spit, and it would cause greater environmental upheaval, including damage to underwater grasses, than an improved Monitor-
Merrimac crossing would, according to the environmental impact statement.
“Every time this issue has come up, the agreement has always been to build the third crossing,” Collins said. “It has been affirmed by the General Assembly and the federal government. Everyone who has studied the issue in depth has reached the same conclusion.”
Now, further study is planned. Del. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk, who helped broker last year’s landmark transportation bill, said he wants to pay for a study to find out how building new tunnels and interstates would affect overall traffic flow. The effects of a wider Hampton Roads tunnel would be part of the study.
Such studies have been done before, but Jones wants this one to include some high-tech modeling data that would show traffic flow in live action, rather than as a chart on a page. “This study will help everyone see how we can get the biggest bang for our buck,” he said.
The decision to build a third crossing has been debated since the mid-1990s, when planners developed a preliminary list of 45 solutions to address rising congestion.
The list was refined to 11 possibilities, including a wider Hampton Roads tunnel, but in the summer of 1997 regional planners selected the new span as the preferred alternative.
Pressure on some local leaders to reconsider the project continues as they are now on the front lines of a debate over raising local taxes to build it.
“It all needs to be revisited,” said Bruce C. Goodson, chairman of the James City County Board of Supervisors and a voting member of the region’s new transportation authority.
“I don’t think it’s wise to put that much money in the third crossing unless they go back and look at all the issues.
“We built the Monitor-Merrimac in the 1980s. That was not 100 years ago,” he added. “It’s been 10 years since those decisions were made. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to revisit them.”
Tom Holden, (757) 446-2331, tom.holden@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Don't care what the
Don't care what the Hollywood Parakeets have to say or the New York Talking Heads
One last thing about Tax rates...
Michigan is doing everything they can to bring business back. Why? not because of the auto industry but because Michigan and the localities taxed out businesses and citizens. My brother lives there and has been there for a real long time. The only reason he can still afford to live there is that his house is paid off. But now you hear about the City government and State Government offering sweet deals to businesses to move there. But they created that situation by taxing out the people then taxing out the businesses. I lived in Millington, TN when the CNRC moved. I saw that when you have a lower tax rate on it's people and good businesses you can grow a depressed town. This is exactly what Millington was after the Navy Flew out. They flew back in and Millington was lowering their tax rates to get people to move in. Guess what, it worked... strange, low taxes, more people, means more money... hmmmmm....
Stafford County...
Stafford County is 45 miles south of DC. The real-estate market there is pretty much recession proof in that most house in that area are going for 3 to 4 hundred grand and still selling. Plus, the Federal Government made many places move out of DC to alleviate congestion. So many places moved south to the Stafford Area and some (like the CNRC and BUPERS) moved completely out to Millington, TN. The real story Mr. Barrett is that Stafford has a lower tax rate then VB and they have less people but MORE because they've spent wisely and developed wisely. You can still sell your house in Stafford for near half a Mil. My parents house went from 127 in 1989 to 369 thousand this last year and still rising. The moral is you can have lower tax rates and still develop and thrive, but you have to do it wisely and this Council and people such as yourself are blind to that simple truth...
Well, I guess I see that the
Well, I guess I see that the glass is half full, not half empty. Frankly, we still have a relatively low tax burden, and our citizens want a highway system that works. When I was travelling around the state to soccer tournament with my kids, we just got in the car and went. Didn't matter, northern VA, Richmond, Roanoke, we just left on Friday afternoon and got there. Not today. Because of a decade of blind neglect, our system went from excellent to deplorable. But lots of politicians got elected by saying we could neglect the system, let the Feds pay for the improvements to the toll road, throw out those bums who want to keep the $0.25 toll so we could widen the road and build the interchanges. Now, the true failure of guys like Leo Wardrup, and the fallacy of their bravado, is clear for all of us to see. Now we fact a toll of $2.50, plus the funding of the HRTA, and many of us will never see those improvments. Sadly, it proves there is no such thing as a free lunch.
We won't forget it...
Because it's the developers needs that are figured in before the citizens. It is the desire of the council before the will of the people. It is people who believe that there are always ALWAYS justifiable reasons to increase the tax burden when fiscal sanity is always left unchecked that we are in the situation that we are in. Yes, the net input of the Soccer complex means that instead of a 2 million dollar take for the city there is a 1.5 million dollar take for the city. So yes, it's paid for. However; it is only robbing Peter to Pay Paul and in the end it is still tax payer money that is being played with. If every business was run like this there would be a lot of unemployed people. You simply can not sustain a losing entity like the Sportsplex especially when the burden keeps increasing year after year. There will be a point of diminishing returns. But instead of seeing it for what it is, an albatross, you choose to say "See, we get 1.5 mill" instead of saying "See, we could have had 2 mill"...
Forget it
If you can't figure out that the $2,000,000 that the city gets annually from youth soccer tournaments is enough to pay the operating cost and the debt service for the Sportsplex (if there were any, which there is not) then there is not much more I can say. Besides, frankly, you would simply ignore the facts because it ruins your story. I am smart enough to know that not everyone supports soccer, or the arts, or recreation centers, or libraries, or canoe and nature trails, or museums, or the convention center, but the fact is, most citizens in this city want an array of basic services plus amenities that make our life interesting and enjoyable. The anti tax, anti government zealots want none of that, they just want the basics. And that is a legitimate point of view. I and most of the citizens at the Beach simply don't agree with you, and frankly, if you don't get that, you never will.
That one line should have read:
Then way is it Taxpayer money to the tune of 1.2 million being used to support it? And...
And your support for discontinued development of the Ocean Front
These were from your words sir, not from the mouths of others... As for the Soccer Complex, you yourself sir stated that this organization pays for the Sportsplex. Then why does Taxpayer money to the tune of $1,207,577 since 2003. And each year the amount grows. In 2003 the cost to the CITY in EXPENSES alone was $222,000. In 2007 that amount was $347,072. Now in your heartfelt responses of past about the Sportsplex you've noted time and again that the Soccer Field at Princess Anne commons pays for this. WRONG. It is a NET cost to the city and the city then takes tax funds to pay for it. You're a business man, name me one company that held on to a losing part of it's organization because it was being paid for by the successful parts? Capital One is a spin off of Signet bank which let the CC devision go for just that reason. The Credit Card division made more money then the banking division. And if Signet did not let go of the CC Divsion it would loose everything. In the end Signet folded but Capital One continues.
Sportsplex
Actually, again, the facts present a different picture. I was involved in developing the Hampton Roads Soccer Complex which is a 75 acre, 19 soccer field complex off recreation drive. This complex, developed primarily with corporate support and contributions from the families of soccer players, annually hosts over 20 youth and adult tournaments which produce visitor tax revenue exceeding $2,000,000 per year. This money is deposited with the city and the city can choose to use it as it wishes. One way to look at it is that soccer players have paid for the Sportsplex two times over; that is, our contribution to the city in the period since the HRSC and Sportsplex were built has been twice what the Sportspex cost. Again, if you continue to get your facts from John Moss, Reid Greenmun, and Robert Dean, you will continue to be poorly informed and to reveal your ignorance every time you post.
My Favorite line...
``As much as I supported resort revitalization at that time, I almost think that now is the time to rechannel some of our development efforts,'' he said. ``At the time we did all that, we had 2.5 million visitors coming each year and we still have 2.5 million visitors.
``We need to acknowledge that the resort has very limited impact on Virginia Beach. Our future is not continuing to focus on surf and sand. It's a part of our future but a limited part.''
So Mr. Barrett, what changed your mind about the Shore Line development? Was it the 2.5 million visitors or was it the thousands that line your pocket???? You were against further development in '95... Now you're all for it... hmmmm.....
So this is why...
...VB has to pay for the non use of the Sportsplex... that amazing development idea... wasn't that your idea MR Barrett???
Actually, once again you
Actually, once again you fail to understand the basic facts about the development of infrastructure. In fact, developers of subdivisions and sites do pay for roads, streets, utility systems, sidewalks, street lights at intersections, street lighting, signs, utility relocation, and the cost to review our plans. Then, when these improvements are finished, we give them to the city and they collect tax revenue on the improvements for decades, perhaps centuries to come. These additions to the tax base help to fund the operations of local government and the capital needs as well. As commercial developers, we attract companies who provide jobs and those workers pay real estate taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, and personal property taxes that also enhance the programs and services of local govenment. If you did not know this, no wonder you condemn developers; now that you have been enlightened, I am sure you will change your opinion.
Oh really?
I have a basic comprehension of the facts, developers do not pay for the infrastructure where they build. Lack of planning and foresight could have averted the transportation mess we are in now.
Small minds? Really? Anyone who builds their outhouse next to a river and expect the rest of us to drink downstream must believe that we'll buy the spin of HRTA. Strategically thinking is way beyond those who caused this problem.
Those Same Minds???
Were those the ones that said a Sportsplex would earn money hand over fist???
Lack of basic knowledge
Perhaps before you post on this issue you ought to have a basic comprehension of the facts. The Virginia Port encompasses facilities in Newport News, Portsmouth, and Norfolk, although the economic impact is felt throughout the region and the Commonwealth. In fact, the city in Hampton Roads that derives the most benefit from the operation of the Port of Virginia is Virginia Beach, which of course, is counter intuititive since there are no Virginia Port facilities in Virginia Beach. Clearly, most of the tax benefits to cities come from the employees who derive their livlihood directly or indirectly from the operations of the Port. So I support the HRTA because engineers and planners who are smarter than me have determined that for our limited dollars, the six projects in the regional package provide the best combination of better access and enhanced prosperity for our region. Small minds can argue over the details of the projects while those who think strategically know we needed these improvements a decade ago.
HRTA, HREDA
Our firm has brought in over 50 businesses within the last 10 yrs. They employ well over 500 persons in the Tidewater area. What brought them in part were the low taxes, cost of living, and employable work force. HRTA will hurt this area with all of their new "fees" (taxes). HREDA is nothing more that a boondoggle that is support by a $1 per person in each city for what? HRTA was not voted upon by those of us living here. Wake up Mr. Barrett, we are tired of supporting developers that give nothing in return. Transportation is a large issue, so are the ports, why wasn't the port developed in Hampton or N.N.? No one is buying your spin on this issue.
People need to learn how to drive.
The problem isn't the roads, bridges or tunnels; it's the drivers. How many times have you been stopped on one side of the tunnel only to get through and find "smooth sailing" on the other side? People need to learn how to drive.
Once again, no answer just rhetoric...
You know, I agree with the fact that a new tunnel should be built. Actually I believe that HRBT should be widened and that the third crossing be partially, if not substantially, paid for by the businesses that will benefit from using it. However; I take issue once again with the fact that people on the council and people like Mr Barrett take issue with citizens doing what they are supposed to be doing... Questioning their government when it comes to expenditures. The CBBT was built with Nary a dime from the Tax payer. The same can be done with the third crossing. And finally, once again we've seen what happens with a City Council left unchecked. You get a Sports Plex that takes money away from schools and services, you get a council that ignores the will of the people, and you get a mismanaged SPSA. Sounds like a successful day on the job, if you're paycheck comes from my pocket ;-)
Get with the Program
Perhaps many of the sadly angry and disaffected posters represented herein will acknowledge that the leadership of the General Assembly, the Governor, and the majority of the Commissioners of the HRTA have no intention of going backwards into the chaos and uncertainty of last year in regard to the package of regional projects now approved and soon to be funded. For now, crying in your beer won't work; it's done, and it is not going to change. Now, after a decade of neglect, denial, and head buried in the sand "leadership" we can finally get on with improving our transportation system. The increased cost to do this is a legacy of the Wardrup, Joannou, Gear, and Allen and Gilmore era, when it was fashionable to tell citizens everything was fine, no problem, we've got it covered, let's cut some more taxes, it will be OK. It was never true, and the failure to lead by these and others represents a monumental failure of leadership. Crumbling highways and abandoned bridges represent the price of failure.
Funny, you never answer the question...
I love how when anyone calls you on it your first reaction is to call names, your favorite is backwater and old codgers. I pray that the electorate remembers these comments if you ever plan to run for office in the city.
But you never answered the question. And just to clarify, I'm 35, married to a Navy QM, Male, BS Degree, working on Masters, Computer tech, database engineer, Caucasian (actually to be politically correct, AngloSaxon-FrancoGerman-Indian-African(some in the blood and proud of it)-Hillbilly).
So I'm the furthest thing from a codger, furthest thing from back water, very intelligent, and tired of having my pocket raped. You say "Nay Nay" on one more study because that would be unfair to a process already agreed upon. WELL MR.BARRETT THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF 31st STREET. Not living in the past, just pointing out your hypocrisy.