The Virginian-Pilot
©
CHESAPEAKE
State regulators approved a permit Tuesday for a new Jordan Bridge linking Chesapeake and Portsmouth across the Elizabeth River, despite some objections that the proposed span is too short to accommodate larger ships expected in the near future.
The unanimous vote by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission is a major, if expected, step for replacing the old Jordan Bridge, which was closed in November because of safety concerns after 70 years of service.
Commission approval means the $100 million replacement project needs just one more government permit - from the Coast Guard - before construction could begin.
Bill Brazier, a bridge management specialist with the Coast Guard, said Tuesday that his office still is reviewing plans and would not give a timeline for a decision.
The proposed Jordan Bridge in South Norfolk would be built by a private company without taxpayer money and has considerable political support.
At Tuesday's packed hearing, two state senators, two state delegates, the Chesapeake mayor and the state transportation secretary all spoke in favor of speedy passage. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine also backs the project.
Linda Figg, CEO of Figg Bridge Developers LLC, based in Florida, said she hopes to obtain a Coast Guard permit soon and start construction within two months. The span should take about 18 months to complete and could be open by late 2010, she said.
The company would make money by charging a $2 electronic toll each way. The bridge also would include access for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Experts at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science had suggested that concrete pilings to support the new bridge not be hammered into the bottom of the river between February and June in order to protect fish that might be spawning then.
But the commission dropped that idea after the developer promised to use a new muffling technology, called an air bubble curtain, to shield fish from loud banging and underwater pressures from pile driving that can injure or kill them.
The state permit requires the developer to first install silt fences and rubber booms to catch oil and other toxic materials stirred up when old bridge pilings are removed.
To compensate for impacts to 97,398 square feet of state-owned river bottom, Figg must pay the commission a royalty of $194,796. The company also will buy credits from a wetlands bank for harming another 1,200 square feet of tidal wetlands because of construction.
The one outstanding issue, which the Coast Guard will decide, is the height and clearance width of the new bridge. Figg wants to build a 145-foot-high span with 225 feet of space between pilings to allow ships to pass underneath. That is roughly the dimensions of the old bridge.
Led by the Virginia Maritime Association, opponents say the bridge should be at least 185 feet tall with a 300-foot horizontal clearance to make room for a new, larger class of ships expected to dominate the industry in coming years.
Ship captains, riverfront industry executives and maritime officials said other East Coast ports, such as Charleston, S.C., and Savannah, Ga., have rebuilt bridges to heights of 185 feet in recent years. To not follow suit here, they said, would put Hampton Roads at a competitive disadvantage.
"We are in favor of a bridge, but please build it right," said David Host, president of T. Parker Host Inc., a Norfolk ship agent and broker.
Reporter Mike Saewitz contributed to this story.
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340 scott.harper@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Figg
Was Figg the firm that did inspections on the Florida bridge where the contractor was fined $4 million for environmental crimes?
Pay and pay:
After this bridge is paid for. Commuters will continue to pay, pay, and pay. Probably for another 70 years. Until it has to be replaced.
Higher and Wider
probably would require some type of suspension bridge. Maybe like the one on the Richmond Beltway. Might give another meaning to bridges in this area. Somethings with design instead of another flat bridge.
The toll amounts to a $1500
The toll amounts to a $1500 annual pay cut for any commuter that wishes to use it, but there should be enough who do to make traffic slightly less awful for those of us who don't. I hope the project also gets the Coast Guard's blessing with only minor changes, if any. It makes a lot of sense for the short term, although I predict that the city and taxpayers of Chesapeake will be kicking themselves for this in 10-15 years. It won't be long until the Downtown Tunnel is backed up 16 hours a day and our political leaders are forced to admit that I-264 needs more than 2 lanes each way. Since there's no land or money to build another tube there, the only alternative is a southern bypass (parallel to Frederick, Elm, & Poindexter), and Figg will have the exclusive right to expand and toll their newly interstate-connected bridge until the end of time.
Local Contractors & Services
I think this bridge is a great thing for Portsmouth and Chesapeake. I hope FIGG Engineering will stimulate the local economy by using local contractors, suppliers, and distribution channels, this would add much needed work in our area. In the future, on other large projects, I hope both cities would implement the use of local companies in negotiations for bid reward.
Two lanes?
Why does the concept picture show only one lane in each direction? We all know how incredibly crowded the Downtown tunnel is during rush hours, more so when there are aircraft carriers tied up there for work. Why not buck the local trend of inadequate planning for the future and lack of forethought? Anticipate the future need for once and build the new bridge as 2 lanes in each direction from the beginning. Come one people, this isn't rocket science...
You Are Correct! It is not Rocket Science
The reason the bridge is proposed to have only two lanes (one in each direction) is that there was only 7,000 vehicles per day using the Jordan. The developer does not expect those levels to increase anytime soon, especially with a $2.00 toll. There is absolutely no funding for improving the 2-lane roads on either side of the bridge. However, the bridge is designed to be able to have another two lanes added at a later date. And lastly, one has to understand this is not a public project; it is a business deal. The developers have a model that works for them with 2 lanes and a $2.00 toll with NO taxpayer money. Who would pay for the other 2 lanes that you suggest? You are correct, it is not rocket science.
Rocket science explained. 1:
Rocket science explained.
1: The approach road from the Chesapeake side is four lanes to within a half of a mile (guesstimate) of the bridge.
2: The approach road from the Portsmouth side leads to a major four lane highway within a mile (again a guesstimate based on memory) of the bridge from that side.
3: How many vehicles used the old bridge per day up until it was closed? Is it fair to say it was between 5 and 7 thousand? Based on that info and the fact that the new and improved Jordan bridge won't open for another year and a half to two years I would anticipate the use of the new bridge at a minimum of 9 thousand vehicles per day.
4: A new, or re-newed route, tolled or not is a better choice than sitting in traffic and potentially being late to work or late to pick up your kids due to traffic.
How is that bridge expandable to 4 lanes? Is it magic or will another bridge be built beside this one at double or quadruple today's cost of construction to accomplish this feat of magic?
Here is how it adds up
Jeffery indicates that total road miles that needs to be four laned for the bridge approaches equals about 1.5 miles. Adding lanes to an existing roadway and assuming that no additional right of way needs to be purchased, but utilities need to be relocated such as water, sewer, fiber optics, natural gas, electricity, cox. In today's competitive bidding process such a road will cost between $7M to $12M. Let's take the average of the extremes and call it $9.5M per 2-lane mile. $9.5 x 1.5 miles = $14.25M to build the extra 1.5 miles of road. Now because the lane miles are not contiguous the $14.25M needs to have added to it a factor of .5; thus the total cost estimated is $14.25 x .5 = $21.37M. This begs the question; where does that chunk of money come from. This is a private developer proposing to build a two lane bridge, not a roadway. The bridge is "expandable" to accomodate two more lanes by having structures cast large enough to support 4 lanes. The additional 2 lanes are cantilevered; one on each side of existing roadway.
The roads that feed the
The roads that feed the bridge, from both sides, are only 2 lanes. Therefore, why should the bridge be more than that? More lanes would only create bottlenecks, when they merge back into 2.