Study: Extra lanes, third crossing will ease region's traffic
By Debbie Messina
The Virginian-Pilot
HaptonRoads.com
January 26, 2009
Backed-up traffic piles up on several lanes of I-264 westbound near the Brambleton
Avenue overpass last year. (Steve Earley | The Virginian-Pilot)
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 BridgeTunnel.
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 bridgetunnel. 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 twolane 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
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following
agreed-upon rules. Comments do not reflect the views or approval of The Virginian-Pilot
or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language. Due to
high volume, comments might not appear immediately on the site. We reserve the right to
reject any comment for any reason. Readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link
below the comment to alert an editor. Repeat offenders will be denied automatic posting
privileges.
Why a 3rd crossing?
Submitted by bobh69730 on Mon, 01/26/2009 at 8:58 am.
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 chokepoints 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.
Duh! Who would have thought this?
Submitted by Goldfinch on Mon, 01/26/2009 at 7:37 am.
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.
We need bridges and another tunnel
Submitted by lisah11030 on Mon, 01/26/2009 at 6:35 am.
much more than we need light rail in Norfolk or VB. The money should be spent where it
benefits the highest percentage of residents.
Build it
Submitted by Chris33 on Mon, 01/26/2009 at 2:12 am.
Take the money from the bridge to nowhere in Alaska and use it to build bridges here.
We need another crossing desperately.