If nothing is done to relieve growing congestion crossing the Hampton Roads harbor, traffic at the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel will swamp its capacity.
A new analysis by Old Dominion University's Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center shows that in 2030, traffic demand will be 50 percent greater than the tunnel was designed to handle during peak travel times.
Mike Robinson, the center's senior project scientist, analyzed the impact of several proposed road projects on congestion at the busy crossing, at the request of a General Assembly subcommittee.
He concluded that adding two lanes or more to the bridge-tunnel and building a third bridge-tunnel between South Hampton Roads and the Peninsula would offer significant improvement to congestion at the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel.
The third crossing would include building a new bridge between Norfolk International Terminals and Interstate 664 and a parallel bridge and tunnel to the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel.
The two combined would result in traffic levels about 8 percent less than capacity in 2030, Robinson said.
He presented the findings to the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization last week.
Dwight Farmer, executive director of the planning agency, said the study's conclusions will shape conversations about crossing projects.
"If you really want to do this right, you really need to look at both alternatives," he said.
Discussions have tended to focus on just one crossing project, he said.
A 1997 study concluded that the $4.2 billion third crossing offered the best all-around solution to transportation woes between the Peninsula and South Hampton Roads. Recently, there's been a renewed interest in expanding the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel.
Last month local leaders had an unprecedented meeting with state legislators to review the results of a state report examining six proposed alternatives to widen the bridge-tunnel. Four would add tunnels and two would add bridges at construction costs ranging from $2.2 billion to $3.2 billion, not including design and right-of-way expenses.
The Virginia Department of Transportation's consultant, however, concluded that two-lane options would do little to relieve congestion.
The ODU study showed that adding just two lanes would bring traffic levels to below capacity when paired with a third crossing, which regional leaders said is important for connecting the ports and spreading traffic across the interstate network.
The third crossing is one of six regional transportation priorities set by the metropolitan planning group that have a total cost of $10 billion. Widening the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel is not on that list but was resurrected by Peninsula leaders last year.
There's no money to build any of the projects.
The Hampton Roads Transportation Authority was created by the General Assembly in 2007 to levy a series of taxes to help finance the six projects. But the Virginia Supreme Court ruled last year that it's unconstitutional for a nonelected body to tax.
Debbie Messina, (757) 446-2588, debbie.messina@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
A 10 year moratorium on
A 10 year moratorium on traffic studies would pay for the third crossing.
Rail Crossing
I also believe a light rail crossing from Hampton to Norfolk would help alot. I think a lot of people would rather sit on a train reading the paper the sit in traffic trying to inch forward. As for Randy Wright, I have never believed anything this guy has said and probably never will. He is looking out for himself (like so many other career politicians).
Anyway, no matter what they choose, I-64 needs to be widen to a minimum 3 lanes in each direction all the way to at least Busch Gardens.
chuckf88365
Why do people have to compare our area with others in the US, when we are nothing alike? Hampton Roads consists of rural areas that are spreadout, unlike the Bay Area of CA, so please don't compare the two. We have traffic issues, but building long, expensive, straight line trains will not help alleviate traffic, and just this weekend, Randy Wright even admitted that the only reason the city of Norfolk was pushing this boondoggle, was to create new development off the line, and that this was never meant to alleviate traffic. I am sorry, but people rely on their cars, and most are not willing to give them up, and like me, able to give them up due to family committments that require me to drive, so let's fix the real traffic issues and add the new tunnels and bridges.
I'm starting a new business.
I'm starting a new business. We will perform studies for the government. We will charge a fortune to tell the government what everyone already knows! It's pure genius. We will only accept the government as our client, because only the government will pay ridiculous sums for obvious information.
wow it took a study
Gee I am really impressed that someone in our government had the good sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars to discover the obvious. I just can't wait until the government is so huge it is planning my menus and scheduling my work....
Hey! Here is an idea! Why don't they just move us all around until no one but people in the government need to cross the rivers? Yeah! Big government is really the solution to all these difficult to understand problems....
Study Not Comprehensive Enough
The study conducted by ODU is not comprehensive enough. Building new or expanding existing roadway infrastructure alone will not ease traffic woes in Hampton Roads. I have said it before. Expanding the light rail system, and developing a more robust mass transit system would be the best solution to ease HR's commuter woes. Commuters make up most of traffic around here anyhow. Obviously, the powers that be like to have single scope thinking around here. Many examples exist in other metropolitan areas across the country that can be molded to suit HR's transit needs. The BART in the bay area of California would fit nicely here in Hampton Roads. How about them geniuses at ODU try running their models with a BART equivalent in HR? I will bet you that the ease of traffic congestion will be much better than 8%. Such a system would also create hundreds of jobs, too. Now consider the benefits in that model!
Bridge from Craney Island to Norfolk--Fast, Cheap, Effective
I'm glad others are beginning to think of bridges rather than tunnels. The first bridge should be built between Craney Island and the Norfolk Marine Termainal (Terminal Blvd area.) Serving the Naval Base and ODU and the Portsmouth Terminal, this bridge would virtually eliminate the Midtown tunnel and Hampton Blvd congestion. It would also greatly reduce the truck traffic at the HRBT. Half the cost of a tunnel and twice as fast to construct, bridges also have breakdown lanes to keep the traffic flowing when people begin the crossing sucking fumes from an empty gas tank (the most common breakdown.)
Stimulus package?
I hope VDOT already has a design package on the shelf ready to go for a 3rd crossing to be submitted as part of the stimulus package that is proposed. 3 billion out of 825 billion would really help the economy in this region (lower travel costs and time lost).
20 years from now??
I see fewer vehicles on the road by then. Not More. this is a bogus prediction. In fact if everyone listens to Al Gore, the south side will be flooded over by then, and gondolas will be the common mode of transportation. bogus study, bogus news story, bogus issue.
I'm confused.
Article says "The third crossing would include building a new bridge between Norfolk International Terminals and Interstate 664 and a parallel bridge and tunnel to the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel."
I don't get it. Two separate, distinct entities - a bridge, and a bridge-tunnel? And it says the new bridge will go to I664, while the new bridge-tunnel will go to the MMBT. Ah, news flash, folks, the MMBT IS I664.
Very poor job on this article in terms of clearly presenting the study's findings. I'm giving it a D-.
TIME TO INJECT SOME REALITY HERE
The Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel exceeds its capacity NOW. Every day backups exceeding 3 miles are on the VDOT message boards. Building a new 460 has many positive points, but it won't help the commuters at the Bridge Tunnel.
Why a 3rd crossing?
Why have 3 crossings that will send all north bound traffic into a choke point on 64 north of the NN/WMBG Airport? Why have a 3rd crossing from the Peninsula just to have people sit in traffic on the Southside?
Simple solution.... Spend the money on turning all of 460 from 58 to 295 into a limited access highway. All the folks traveling through will be better off bypassing the choke-points via another north/south corridor. Sure will help with emergency evacuation as well. It will also create more jobs than having the work confined to one or two major contractors that would get that lucrative bridge contract.
What am I missing here?
I cross the M&M all the time and have very rarely ever even had to slow down unless there was a wreck! I know that the HRBT is jammed packed but not the M&M! Oh yeah, the "3rd" crossing which actually the 1st in the James River Bridge. Also had very few problems there unless there was a lift. I guess some people just have`nt been around here very long to remember when we HAD to drive. They just want to spend spend spend in order to have a crossing as close to home as posible!Heck why not build one from VA Bch to Hampton so they don`t have to drive so far??? LOL
The state owns the port, the state should pay for 3rd Crossing
Any tax "profits" gained from the Port of Virginia (our port) go right to Richmond. The Port wants to expand and flood our highways with more trucks. The STATE should pay for the "3rd Crossing" & the "new" RT 460 - becuase those projects are mostly wanted to move Port trucks. The HRBT is a horrific traffic bottleneck. The Hampton Roads Partnership, MPO, and HRPDC are over influenced by the Port lobby. The questions is not so much a matter of if the 3rd Crossing should be built, but who should pay for it. The MPO and local business lobbies have refused to include adding lane capacity to the HRBT in our 20 year regional transportation plan because their biased process places speculative "economic development" much higher than reducing commuter traffic congestion.
Duh! Who would have thought this?
Geesh, how much money was spent on ODU to tell us that more lanes and another crossing would relieve traffic? I am sure there are 100,000 commuters that go over and through the HRBT that could have said the same thing and would have offered the advice for free.
Visionary
I can't see next week, but "they" can see 30 years.
Just land fill Hampton Roads and then we won't need anymore tunnels.
How about $5 tax on gas. More money for state and/or less driving.
.
Our tax dollars are being wasted.
Instead of the infrastructure being put first in the politicians mind, it's all the give-away programs that are creating a huge black hole that sucks the tax dollars to no where. It's time that government on all levels (local/state/federal) realize that we should be leaving development of buildings and houses to the private sector and the government should be concerned about infrastructure (roads/utilities) and control the growth of building until the infrastructure is in place. How many joint or government funded projects are either in the plans or already being built? The private investors and builders are taking their profits up front and the governments are stuck with an uncompleted or white elephant. All the empty office space in this area and our tax dollars are being used to build more. It's time to stop.
Series of Tubes?
Much better would be a) a second tube at the midtown, and b) the crossing from NN Point to Sewell's Point/564 (this could probably be a bridge, not a tunnel, even). Anyone who's paid the slightest attention to this would understand that.
We need bridges and another tunnel
much more than we need light rail in Norfolk or VB. The money should be spent where it benefits the highest percentage of residents.
Factually incorrect. Another try to sell the 3rd Crossing?
This story is not correct. The Hampton Roads Crossing study clearly revealed that the $4.4B T-Connector "3rd Crossing" project intended mostly to benefit the Virginia Port Authority had a very tiny potential impact at reducung traffic congestion, while adding the same number of lanes as the "3rd Crossing" to the HRBT nearly doubled the amount of traffic congestion relief (for LOS E-F) while it was roughly half the cost, based on the data availbe in 2000. This story appears to seek ro obscure this truth and tried to merge the Port's "want" for a very expensive brignge tunnel with our regional commuter's NEED for more lane capacity at the HRBT. This also sets up the question of whose traffic projections can we trust, the professional HRPDC or a local university that is a member of the hampton Roads Partnership and has a known bias in the matter of supporting the failed YES Campaign and the agenda of the hampton Roads Partnership?