Letters to Editor - bLetters

We welcome your opinion on public issues, in either of two ways. You can submit a letter to the editor for possible publication in the printed edition. The Virginian-Pilot welcomes letters to the editor on all topics, although concise letters (150 words or less) on public issues will receive priority. Letters may be edited for length, style and clarity and writers are limited to one published letter every month. Please add your name, city, street address and daytime telephone number for confirmation.

The other way is to comment on the published letters in this blog. In this online forum, you can comment as much as you want by using the comment box at the end of each entry.

By e-mail: letters@pilotonline.com

By mail: Letters to the editor - P.O. Box 449 - Norfolk, VA 23501-0449

By fax: (757) 446-2051

Category: Readers' Opinions

■ 05 July 2009 | 5:00 AM

Shortsighted bridge plan

I am amazed to see that approval for construction of the proposed replacement for the Jordan Bridge over the Elizabeth River could be accomplished within the next week or so without any economic, financial, environmental or navigational analysis of the impact of the proposed design upon the regional economy and waterway traffic.

The Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River is the only remaining area offering deepwater access to industrial port development in the region. I can't believe that the governing authorities, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard, with the support of the concerned maritime industry, would allow this obstruction to be approved solely on the threat by the developer of this toll bridge: to cancel the offer if not approved in the next week or so, possibly July 6.

I base this expression of concern on some 20 years as operator of private-sector marine cargo terminals and 30 years as port planning consultant to World Bank, USAID, Asian Development Bank and UNDP projects in more than 25 countries about the world.

Ernest E. Ball

Virginia Beach

View 7 comment(s) Link to post

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

Hampton Roads economy

Submitted by Len Rothman on Sun, 07/05/2009 at 5:40 pm.

needs shipping. It is one of the best private industries we have considering all the government money in the area.

Any future plans need to be considered, particularly if the other bridges on the river are old also, and will eventually be modernized or replaced.

We can't live off the government dole forever.

Ah, well, that didn't take long

Submitted by Wm D Tabor DDS on Mon, 07/06/2009 at 2:43 pm.

As I suspected, someone wants to bring more and bigger ships in

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/deepwater-commercial-site-elizabeth-river-sale

And worse, this site is on the East side of the Elizabeth River, so any container truck traffic it generates will have to go North to the Downtown Tunnel or South to the High Rise Bridge on I464 to go West.

Like those crossing aren't already congested enough. It would be poor planning to encourage any more container truck traffic East of the River.

Exactly my point. The

Submitted by lynn w on Mon, 07/06/2009 at 10:28 pm.

Exactly my point. The Jordan Bridge is gone now so why rush to replace it? Norfolk and MPO let the old bridge close without any discussion, and there should be considerable consideration about any replacement. We already made our choice many years ago when we voted down the third crossing - time to live with the consequences.

Absolutely, Mr. Rothman.

Submitted by lynn w on Sun, 07/05/2009 at 8:02 pm.

Absolutely, Mr. Rothman. The old Jordan Bridge is gone now, so what's the hurry. There are big industries south of the bridge that need to be considered.

Mr. Schucet is a former VDOT commissioner with a college education in Russian History, no transportation experience. He's the one pushing the devolopers bid, obviously for a big profit. Don't think they care about us.

But does it need shipping from Chesapeake?

Submitted by Wm D Tabor DDS on Sun, 07/05/2009 at 6:53 pm.

There is already plenty of port capacity available with the Craney Island expansion, and it will not need more bridge or tunnel capacity there.

The question we should be asking is why would we expect much larger ships to be transiting the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, which is narrow and shallow compared to the Craney Island port?

Shortsighted Bridge Plan

Submitted by lynn w on Sun, 07/05/2009 at 9:33 am.

Yes, yes, yes Mr. Ball, you are so correct. Why let these developers make money at the expense to this region's economy when Norfolk and Portsmouth (and the MPO) let Chesapeake close the old Jordan Bridge with little or no discussion. The new bridge proposal needs to be carefully studied by all responsible parties.

Oh oh, something is going on we don't know about

Submitted by Wm D Tabor DDS on Sun, 07/05/2009 at 8:13 am.

The proposed bridge would not be a problem for any of the shipping that currently uses the Elizabeth River, so we should consider why all this opposition?

Is there a secret plan for a new port facility afoot? Something that would bring larger container ships into Chesapeake, with the associated added truck traffic to burden our already overstressed roads?

Perhaps we should not only build the bridge, but also place mines.