Army corps raises hurdle for Jordan Bridge too high

In a perfect world, any structure that would replace the now-demolished Jordan Bridge would rise as high as the eye could see, be wide enough to accommodate the heaviest super-tankers, be constructed with public money and not require tolls.

And pixie dust would make us all fly.

Alas, we don't live in a perfect world. But a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers, which criticizes a private development team's proposal to build a new Portsmouth-South Norfolk link, seems to think we do. It will be up to the U.S. Coast Guard, which must decide whether to issue a permit for the project, to balance the competing interests and decide on approval..

The Coast Guard should say yes. Otherwise, don't expect a replacement span anytime in the foreseeable future. Rejection would hurt South Hampton Roads residents, especially those who live and work in areas that were linked by the old bridge.

The corps, as part of the public comment process, sent a letter dated June 22 to the Coast Guard. Officials with the corps object to the concept led by Florida-based Figg Bridge Developers that proposes a structure that's 145 feet high and 225 wide between fender systems. The corps notes those measurements don't meet "current or future federal navigation requirements." The Virginia Maritime Association has voiced similar concerns.

"These clearances are unacceptable to the Corps of Engineers' long-term navigation mission and are in direct conflict with one of the Hampton Roads Navigational Summit's Priority Project initiatives to construct the 45-foot and 40-foot (Elizabeth River) Southern Branch Channels to authorized widths and depths," the letter from the corps states. The agency also cites a 1986 law dealing with the Southern Branch.

However, these objections don't acknowledge several realities. The corps notes, for example, that the federal channel under the proposed bridge "has not yet been constructed to its full dimensions," which is authorized for 45 feet. When would that work occur? Given current federal deficits and other spending priorities, it's probably not high on most lists.

Second, Figg Bridge officials contend that a bridge significantly higher and wider than the company proposes would dramatically raise the cost and complicate construction. The project is now estimated at less than $100 million. A bridge 165 feet high and 300 feet wide, for example, would require rebuilding the Interstate 464 interchange and tearing up Poindexter Street in Chesapeake, and would interfere with part of the SPSA plant in Portsmouth, said Philip Shucet, a member of the bridge team and former commissioner of the state Department of Transportation.

Third, several existing bridges crossing the Southern Branch have lower height and width clearances. Even the maximum clearance for the rebuilt Gilmerton Bridge will be less than the proposed Jordan Bridge. Why is the Figg proposal having to face tougher standards?

Last, there's little or no public money for new road building in Virginia. The private proposal to redo the Jordan won't cost taxpayers for construction, and tolls of about $2 will help finance it. Shucet says if the Coast Guard requires major changes, the project will die.

Part of the Coast Guard's bridge mission is to develop "a safer, more efficient and convenient marine and land transportation system." Even in a less-than-perfect world, the Jordan Bridge proposal is a sensible one. Federal officials should keep that in mind when evaluating the project.