The Hampton Roads Crossing Study addressed what cross-Hampton Roads highway project would be needed to address future traffic needs after the completion of the I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Bridge-Tunnel crossing in 1992.

Article index with internal links
Hampton Roads Crossing Study
Candidate Build Alternative 9
Public-Private Proposal in 2001 to Build the Third Hampton Roads Crossing
Intermodal Connector in Norfolk
Public-Private Proposals in 2004 to Build the Third Hampton Roads Crossing (**4-2-2005 Update**)
My Recommendation for How to Fund the Third Hampton Roads Crossing Project
Links to My Website Articles
Links to External Website Articles
Legend

I've tracked in others of my website articles the development of highway facilities across Hampton Roads and the James River in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads region of Virginia. In opening sequence, this was the two-lane US-17 James River Bridge which opened in 1928, the two-lane Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) which opened in 1957, the parallel two-lane Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel which opened in 1976 with both HRBT facilities comprising the four-lane I-64 HRBT, the four-lane replacement US-17 James River Bridge which opened in 1982, and the four-lane I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel which opened in 1992. Over many decades, highway capacity has gradually been expanded to handle the historical growth in highway traffic between the Peninsula and South Hampton Roads, traffic that needs to cross the five-mile wide estuary known as Hampton Roads. The length of the crossings and the need to cross major shipping channels, has required the construction of some very expensive bridges and tunnels.

Hampton Roads Crossing Study

The Hampton Roads Crossing Study addressed what cross-Hampton Roads highway project would be needed to address future traffic needs after the completion of the I-664 bridge-tunnel crossing in 1992. The study also addressed what kind of multi-modal facilities could be included in this crossing, such as busway, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV), and passenger rail. The study started in 1993, and many public meetings and hearings were held. Two transportation committees in 1997 determined their recommendation for which alternative to choose for the new Hampton Roads Crossing in Virginia. The two committees, one with the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, the other with the Hampton Roads Crossing Study, worked with consultant Baker Environmental Consulting, Inc. to study the alternatives.

The recommendation for the new crossing was Corridor 9, to expand the I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel (MMMBT) to 10 lanes on five separate two-lane roadways. This was favored over the "second best" alternative, Corridor 1, which would expand to 10 lanes the I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) and I-64 between I-664 in Hampton and I-564 in Norfolk. Under Corridor 9, all four existing lanes of the MMMBT would carry traffic in one direction. Four new lanes would be built to carry traffic the other way, along with two other lanes for busses or passenger rail transit. A mid-span spur from the MMMBT would carry traffic to Craney Island and to Hampton Blvd. and I-564 in Norfolk, near the U. S. Navy Base.

The planning name for the selected Corridor 9 alternative is the Third Hampton Roads Crossing.

The entire I-664 corridor would be widened, from I-64/I-264 in Chesapeake to I-64 in Hampton, having 10 lanes north of the Norfolk spur, and 6 lanes south of there. The Norfolk spur (might this be numbered I-564?) would run from just south of the MMMBT south island, east-west to Norfolk to I-564, and the lane configuration would be two each way and two reversible (on three separate two-lane roadways). The east section of the spur would form the long-discussed Uptown Crossing of the Elizabeth River. The full Corridor 9 project will cost $2.7 billion in year 2000 dollars ($4.4 billion if built in stages 2004-2014), and can be built in stages. For comparison, Corridor 1 would cost $1.2 billion in year 2000 dollars.

The selection panel believed that the Corridor 9 option is the most optimum, since it connects the region's ports, gives more ways to cross the water, cuts congestion on the HRBT, opens up Craney Island for development, reduces congestion on Hampton Boulevard in Norfolk, reduces congestion on the Midtown Tunnel, provides another major entrance to the U.S. Navy Base in Norfolk, and improves traffic flow on I-64 on the Peninsula and in South Hampton Roads.

The new tunnel will comprise three tubes with two lanes each. The three tubes would be in a single sunken tunnel element. Including the existing two two-lane MMMBT tubes (which are also in a single sunken tunnel element), the entire facility will have five tubes, each with two lanes. Four tubes will be for general-purpose lanes, and one tube will be multi-modal, for HOV/busway/rail transit. The I-664 South Island will be expanded to make room for the new tunnel portals, and the I-664 North Island (actually a peninsula) at the tip of Newport News will also be expanded to make room for the new tunnel portals. The expanded MMMBT will surpass the Fort McHenry Tunnel (which has eight lanes in four separate tubes) in Baltimore as the widest underwater highway tunnel in the world. The two-lane multi-modal roadway will run from Newport News, through the tunnel complex, then onto the Norfolk spur, into Norfolk. The Elizabeth River Uptown Crossing will be a tunnel, with the west portal on a manmade island, and the east portal in Norfolk about 500 feet from the shoreline.

Again, there will be two underwater tunnels constructed on this bridge-tunnel complex, each with the three tube design depicted below -- a 4,800-foot-long tunnel facility paralleling and conjoining the existing I-664 twin-tube 4-lane tunnel, and a 5,000-foot-long new tunnel facility across the mouth of the Elizabeth River.

Today, there are three four-lane crossings of Hampton Roads. They are the I-64 HRBT, the I-664 MMMBT, and the US-17 James River Bridge. There are eight Interstate lanes, and four arterial lanes, for a total of 12 lanes. After the expansion of the MMMBT, there will be 14 interstate lanes and 4 arterial lanes, for a total of 18 lanes across Hampton Roads.

Because of the high volume of warship traffic, the U.S. Navy has historically requested that highway crossings downstream of Norfolk/Hampton Roads naval installations be in a tunnel under the shipping channel, so that no high-level bridges would exist that could be destroyed in wartime or by terrorism, and block the shipping channel for perhaps weeks or months. See my article Bridge-Tunnel Facilities in Virginia for more details.

No definite schedule for construction has been determined yet. Tolls are a possibility on all the Hampton Roads crossings if large amounts of toll revenue bonds are needed to finance the Third Hampton Roads Crossing.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the location of the third crossing of Hampton Roads in its regular meeting July 20, 2000, thereby clearing the way for VDOT to begin working on the design of the project. The board endorsed the locally favored option (Corridor 9) that doubles the I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel and adds connections to Craney Island and Norfolk. The board determined that this option would significantly reduce congestion at the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, address future growth in Hampton Roads, and provide connections to ports and major freight corridors. Estimated cost of the total project is $2.7 billion in 2000 dollars. It would be completed in five phases, and area residents would experience substantial traffic relief with the construction of the first two phases of the Third Crossing at an estimated cost of $1.9 billion. The next step for the project was the completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in late 2000 and the issuance of the Record of Decision by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

After a comprehensive study of alternatives by the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Board this morning approved the location of the project and cleared the way for VDOT to begin working on the design. The board endorsed the locally favored option that doubles the Interstate 664 Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel and add connections to Craney Island and Norfolk. The Board determined this option would significantly reduce congestion at the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, address future growth in Hampton Roads and provide connections to ports and major freight corridors.

The estimated cost of the total project is $2.7 billion in current dollars. The approved location of the Third Crossing will allow it to be constructed in five phases. Hampton Roads residents would experience substantial traffic relief with the construction of the first two phases of the Third Crossing at an estimated cost of $1.9 billion. The next step for the project will be the completion of the final Environmental Impact Statement in late 2000 and the issuance of a record of decision by federal authorities. VDOT will begin the final design in early 2001. Construction will be scheduled as future funding becomes available.

Candidate Build Alternative 9

A paralleling, three-tube tunnel typical section to the west of the existing I-664 Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel would cross Hampton Roads. Two of the tubes would carry two lanes each of eastbound vehicular traffic. The third tube would be used for multimodal travel, and would be dimensioned to accommodate all multimodal possibilities: HOV, passenger rail and/or bus travel. Westbound vehicular traffic would use the four travel lanes in the existing I-664 tunnel tubes. A three-tube tunnel typical section would cross the entrance to the Elizabeth River and connect to Norfolk. Eastbound and westbound vehicular traffic would be carried in two of the tubes, while the third tube would be used for multimodal travel.

Design: Two bridge-tunnels with 4 conventional travel lanes, and 2 lanes for multimodal use. Widen I-664 on the Peninsula to 8 conventional travel lanes and 2 additional lanes for multimodal use. Widen I-664 on the Southside to 6 conventional travel lanes. New roadway from the interchange over the water south of the Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel to I-564 in Norfolk with 4 conventional travel lanes and 2 lanes for multimodal use. Widen I-564 in Norfolk to 8 conventional travel lanes and 2 additional lanes for multimodal use. New roadway to VA 164 in Portsmouth with 4 conventional travel lanes.

Accommodated Modes: SOV, HOV, Trucks, Buses, Passenger Rail

CTB Endorsement of Locally Preferred Alternative: On September 18, 1997, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) passed a resolution which expressed its good faith intent to facilitate and develop the Hampton Roads Transportation Crossing identified as Transportation Corridor 9, which consists of a facility that includes a Bridge/Tunnel from I-564 in Norfolk to I-664 in Newport News with a connection from this new facility to the Western Freeway (Route 164), in Portsmouth and with the CSX Transportation Corridor on the Peninsula for the transit component as adopted by the MPO.

The Hampton Roads Crossing Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in October of 1999, and DEIS/Location Public Hearings were held on January 24, March 1 and March 2, 2000 (Hearings previously scheduled for January 26 and 27, 2000 were cancelled due to inclement weather and rescheduled for the March dates.). This FEIS incorporates, by reference, the analysis contained in the DEIS and responds to comments on that document. This FEIS also identifies Candidate Build Alternative 9 as the Preferred Alternative.

A paralleling, three-tube tunnel typical section to the west of the existing I-664 Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel would cross Hampton Roads. Two of the tubes would carry two lanes each of eastbound vehicular traffic. The third tube would be used for multimodal travel, and would be dimensioned to accommodate all multimodal possibilities: HOV, passenger rail and/or bus travel. Westbound vehicular traffic would use the four travel lanes in the existing I-664 tunnel tubes. A three-tube tunnel typical section would cross the entrance to the Elizabeth River and connect to Norfolk. Eastbound and westbound vehicular traffic would be carried in two of the tubes, while the third tube would be used for multimodal travel.

Termini: Peninsula, I-64 and I-664 interchange in Hampton. Southside, I-64 and I-564 interchange in Norfolk; I-64, I-664, and I-264 interchange in Chesapeake; and VA 164 in Portsmouth

Design: Two bridge-tunnels with 4 conventional travel lanes, and 2 lanes for multimodal use. Widen I-664 on the Peninsula to 8 conventional travel lanes and 2 additional lanes for multimodal use. Widen I-664 on the Southside to 6 conventional travel lanes. New roadway from the interchange over the water south of the Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel to I-564 in Norfolk with 4 conventional travel lanes and 2 lanes for multimodal use. Widen I- 564 in Norfolk to 8 conventional travel lanes and 2 additional lanes for multimodal use. New roadway to VA 164 in Portsmouth with 4 conventional travel lanes.

Accomodated Modes: SOV, HOV, Trucks, Buses, Passenger Rail

   1. A new bridge tunnel and roadway from existing Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel to I-564 in Norfolk with 4 conventional travel lanes and 2 lanes for multimodal use. Widen I-564 in Norfolk to 8 conventional travel lanes and 2 multimodal use lanes.
   2. A new bridge tunnel parallel to existing I-664 Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel with two tubes of the tunnel carrying 4 conventional travel lanes and one tube carrying 2 multimodal use lanes.
   3. A 4 lane connection from the new facility, just east of Craney Island, running south to VA 164 in Portsmouth.
   4. Widen I-664 on the Peninsula to 8 conventional travel lanes and 2 additional lanes for multimodal use.
   5. Widen I-664 on the Southside to 6 conventional travel lanes.

Candidate Build Alternative 9 requires fewer estimated residential relocations than either of the other two alternatives. Candidate Build Alternative 9 would require the relocation of 38 residential units, potentially impacting 101 people. Candidate Build Alternatives 1 and 2 would each require the relocation of 128 residential units, with both alternatives potentially impacting 368 people. Although minor, Candidate Build Alternative 9 is also the alternative that has the least disproportionate impact on minority populations as required by E.O. 12898 (Environmental Justice). Candidate Build Alternatives 1 and 2 relocate 42 residential units occupied by minorities and 16 residential units occupied by persons of low income. Candidate Build Alternative 9 relocates 36 minority residential units and 12 low income units.

Sequential design and construction of large complicated projects is consistent with FHWA regulations and guidance (23 CFR 771.111 (f)(1) and Development of Logical Project Termini). It is also consistent with the Corp of Engineers’ general policy of only permitting highway construction projects that have independent utility and logical termini and represent single and complete projects.

The concrete tube design offers some advantages over the steel tube design due to its smaller outside dimensions. The concrete tube design is rectangular in section and employs a jet air longitudinal ventilation system that supplies fresh from one end of the tunnel and pumps it longitudinally in accordance to traffic movements, prevailing winds, and climatic conditions. The overall height of the concrete tube section is 9.1 meters (30 feet). The reduced height decreases the area and volume of dredging required for the tunnel, thereby reducing excavation costs and habitat impacts. While this design is not typically used in the United States, it has been used for several European and Far East tunnels. Manufacturing of the tunnel tubes is usually done in close proximity to the project site due to their small flotation factor although long tows on other projects have met with success.

Regarding Description of Proposed Work, from the FEIS (in blue text):
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK

The Thimble Shoal Channel is proposed as a potential resource for fill material for the Hampton Roads tunnels and islands. The Thimble Shoal Channel extends from the Virginia Capes across the lower end of the Chesapeake Bay into the deep waters of Hampton Roads. Thimble Shoal Channel is presently 1,000 feet wide and approximately 13 miles long. The channel is heavily used by commercial ships and military ships, and the channel must be dredged periodically to maintain navigation. The channel is currently 50 feet deep within the 650-foot wide outbound lane and 45 feet deep within the remaining 350-foot wide inbound lane. Authorized improvements for Thimble Shoal Channel provide for deepening to 55 feet (HRMA, 1997).

The Virginian-Pilot had an article about a proposal by private companies to fund and build this project, on May 24, 2001, "Proposals offered for Third Crossing". Excerpts follow (blue text):
A group of companies has submitted a plan to build the much-anticipated third bridge-tunnel to the Peninsula five years sooner and hundreds of millions of dollars cheaper than state estimates. The group, Hampton Roads Constructors, wants to partner with the Virginia Department of Transportation to build 13 miles of bridges and tunnels by 2009. Financial and construction details are confidential because the state is accepting competing bids through June 29. VDOT has estimated the cost at $4.4 billion if the project is built over a 14-year period. The state and local cities say the bridge-tunnel, known as the Third Crossing, is vital to the region's economy.

The new bridge-tunnel would relieve congestion at the region's primary gateway, the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, as well as on the Midtown and Downtown tunnels between Norfolk and Portsmouth. It would also link the region's ports and increase mobility for the Navy and shipbuilding industry. The route parallels the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel, but splits to the east in the middle of the Hampton Roads harbor to Craney Island, where a fourth international port and a Maersk Sealand terminal are proposed. From there one leg goes south to Va. 164, and another goes east across the Elizabeth River to the Norfolk International Terminals, and over to interstates 564 and 64. Each segment would include a lane that could be used for HOVs, express buses, light rail or high-speed rail.

The article went on to say that Hampton Roads Constructors proposed starting construction in early 2003 and completing the entire complex in 2009. Under the state's plan at that time, construction would begin in 2005 and the facility would be opened in phases through 2014. Road construction needs are outstripping available state and federal transportation funding, and some major highway projects under study in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area involve private funding participation and tolls. Virginia's Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPTA) invites private companies to propose transportation projects. They can be built as privately funded roads with no public money, or as a public-private partnership with a mix of public and private funding with the state retaining ownership. Tolls on the new facility would be the usual method of recouping the investment for the private investors. The Route 895 Pocahontas Parkway near Richmond was funded this way. Hampton Roads Constructors offered a public-private proposal for the Third Hampton Roads Crossing.

Virginia's PPTA: Public-Private Transportation Act.

An article about this public-private partnership proposal was published in Engineering News-Record (ENR) magazine on January 12, 2002. The article is "VDOT Goes International Seeking Builder for Third Bridge-Tunnel". ENR is primarily oriented toward the construction industry, and they have some interesting insights stemming from that perspective. The article had these excerpts (blue text):
In a new round of bidding, international companies have been invited to compete to build a new bridge-tunnel linking South Hampton Roads and the Peninsula. In May, a group of businesses with local ties offered an unsolicited proposal to build the much-anticipated third bridge-tunnel. By law, the state sought competing bids in national advertisements. None were received. Now, because the Virginia Department of Transportation may want to use federal money for the project, it must again seek competition, this time casting a wider net and advertising internationally. Companies have until the end of January to submit proposals. "The Federal Highway Administration says that for such a large project we need a larger pool," said Tom F. Boyd, VDOT's assistant commissioner for finance. Although the proposal in hand does not call for federal money, VDOT wants to keep its options open. "It's better for the people of Hampton Roads because it gives more flexibility for funding in the future," Boyd said.

The article goes on to say that Hampton Roads Constructors included some of the world's leading bridge and tunnel contractors, including Tidewater Construction Company (today's Tidewater Skanska, Inc.), a subsidiary of Skanska USA, who built the I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the US-17 Coleman Bridge at Yorktown; also, Interbeton Inc., a subsidiary of Hollandsche Beton Groep, who built the I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel, the I-90 Ted Williams Tunnel in Boston, and many submerged tunnels in Europe; also, Parsons Brinckerhoff and JE Sverdrup, who have designed tunnels, bridges and highways in Hampton Roads and around the world. Hampton Roads Constructors wanted to start construction in early 2003, with the opening of the entire complex by 2009. This would include all the highway segments that comprise the selected Corridor 9 alternative of the Third Hampton Roads Crossing.

In August 2002, VDOT returned five PPTA proposals for projects across the state, including the Third Hampton Roads Crossing.

From a VDOT news release on August 2, 2002, VDOT Returns Five PPTA Proposals for Projects Across the State, excerpt in blue text:
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) returned today five private-sector proposals for various transportation projects including I-81 widening and the Hampton Roads Third Crossing. These unsolicited proposals were submitted under the Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPTA). "The Governor and VDOT are committed to working with the private sector to find innovative solutions to our transportation needs across the Commonwealth," said VDOT Commissioner Philip Shucet. "The decision to return the proposals has nothing to do with the quality of the proposals," said Shucet. "The proposals are being returned as a result of pending revisions to the PPTA guidelines and Six-Year Program reductions."

The then-existing PPTA proposals for the Third Hampton Roads Crossing were also shelved due to the upcoming transportation tax referendums in Virginia in November 2002; there was a referendum in Northern Virginia and a referendum in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area. Both referenda were voted down at the polls. The referendum in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area would have authorized a 1 cent increase in the region's sales tax, and would have authorized $7 billion in new transportation funding over a 20-year period, including paying for the entire cost of the Third Hampton Roads Crossing.

Since November 2002, as of the November 2003 update of this article, there have been more efforts to find funding for this project.

The Virginian-Pilot had an article about a proposal to utilize tolls to fund and build this project, on August 21, 2003, "3rd crossing on wish list; tolls could pay for each phase". Excerpts follow (blue text):
A third crossing over Hampton Roads returned Wednesday to the playbook of regional road planners who now envision the massive project as one built in phases, with each one paid for by tolls. The contemplated first phase would link Interstate 564 in Norfolk by a bridge-tunnel to an Interstate 664 interchange. That would allow traffic from Norfolk direct access to the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel. Engineers like the idea because it would provide a badly needed relief valve for traffic should major problems, such as a catastrophic accident, prohibit passage through the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel.

The first phase, estimated to cost about $1.8 billion, would not allow more vehicles to travel back and forth daily between the Peninsula and South Hampton Roads. Even more tunnels would have to be added between the two sides to accomplish that, pushing the third crossing's total cost past $4.5 billion. But tackling the project in phases would bring the region closer to the eventual goal of making daily commutes much smoother. The change is the latest evolution in the ongoing debate over how to plan for costly road projects during lean economic times.

By unanimous vote Wednesday, the Metropolitan Planning Organization added the crossing project's first phase to a master road-building list that it has been struggling to complete. The organization, made up of local mayors and city and county managers, periodically revises the list to identify which roads should be built or improved over the next 20 years.

It was the strongest endorsement yet of tolls as a funding tool by a significant player in the road-planning process. Like the third crossing, the Southeastern Parkway would rely largely on tolls if the local planners' latest proposal holds.

[VDOT Commissioner] Shucet said he expects to receive a proposal this year outlining how the private sector could team up with Virginia to build the third crossing's first phase. Previous public-private proposals have been rejected for not meeting criteria set by VDOT.

What tolls would be set on the third crossing is unknown. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission is conducting a study to determine where tolls will work and how much money they can be expected to generate. Previous studies have found that placing tolls over the entire third crossing, bridge and tunnel, would cost drivers $3 a trip.

Intermodal Connector in Norfolk

The Virginia Department of Transportation is working jointly on the Intermodal Connector project with the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Navy, Virginia Port Authority, City of Norfolk, and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. This will be the first project built in the Third Hampton Roads Crossing.

I attended the Location and Design Public Hearing for this project. It was held on Wednesday evening, November 1, 2000 at the auditorium of Sewells Point Elementary School in Norfolk, about 1/4 mile from where the new highway will cross Hampton Boulevard. I stayed for about an hour to look at the displays and talk to the engineers and planners. There were about 30 citizens there while I was there.

This 2.6-mile-long project will be part of the future Third Hampton Roads Crossing, and it will provide immediate benefits. The estimated cost is $84.0 million for engineering, right-of-way and construction. The 2005-2010 VDOT Six-Year Program has the project programmed for preliminary engineering and for right-of-way acquisition, but not for construction. Projected average daily traffic in 2018 is 27,800.

Project purpose per the hearing brochure: "The purpose of this project is to provide a safe, high-speed, highway connection from existing I-564 to Norfolk International Terminals and Norfolk Naval Station. This highway link will provide improved access to these vital facilities and reduce vehicular and heavy truck traffic on the adjacent roadways".

Today, I-564 and Admiral Taussig Boulevard provide direct regional highway access to the northern part of the Navy Base, and I-564 and International Terminal Boulevard provide direct regional highway access to the south end of the Norfolk International Terminals (NIT is comprised of commercial marine terminals). The respective junctions of Admiral Taussig Boulevard and International Terminal Boulevard with VA-337 Hampton Boulevard are over 2 miles apart, and there is a need for direct access to the central area of the port where the Navy Base and NIT join, and that is the purpose of the Intermodal Connector.

The project is named "I-564 Intermodal Connector" and was tentatively (according to one of the project engineers that I talked to at the 2000 Location and Design Public Hearing) planned to carry the I-564 route designation, and the northernmost one mile of current I-564 would be renumbered to some as yet undetermined number (I would suggest I-364).

The eastern project limit will be at the International Terminal Boulevard interchange on I-564, and will involved adding one (4th) lane each way to I-564, transitioning for about 1.3 mile westward to a high-speed semi-directional connection to the new highway, and the new location highway will head due west and parallel to and just north of the Norfolk and Portsmouth Beltline Railroad line which connects to the port, crossing Hampton Boulevard, and ending at an at-grade junction with Virginia Avenue in the port area. The connection between existing I-564 and the new highway will have a full easterly freeway connection to I-564 east, with a design speed of 60 mph, a maximum horizontal curvature of about 2 degrees 30 minutes, and a maximum grade of 3.5% on the westbound flyover.

A new 4-lane 1/4-mile-long section of Virginia Avenue will complete a missing link in that thoroughfare and provide for better circulation in the port area west of Hampton Boulevard. The 1.3-mile-long new location portion of the Intermodal Connector will be a 4-lane freeway with a minimum median width of 58 feet, and it will pass over Hampton Boulevard on bridges with no interchange. About 1,500 feet of Hampton Boulevard on either side of the Intermodal Connector will be reconstructed and lowered so that the major at-grade freight railroad crossing can be bridged over Hampton Boulevard.

The future Third Hampton Roads Crossing (THRC) will use the Intermodal Connector right-of-way and its dual roadways, and the western terminus of the Intermodal Connector will be rebuilt and extended westward into a tunnel portal to cross the Elizabeth River, and head toward a mid-Hampton Roads junction with I-664. There is not sufficient room (due to existing development) to have a direct interchange with Hampton Boulevard and the new highway, so there will be no present ramps there, and when the future THRC is built, there will be a connector road and interchange to the new highway about 1/4 mile east of Hampton Boulevard, with a road connecting to Hampton Boulevard.

The THRC project will also add to the median of the Intermodal Connector, either an HOV/busway roadway, or a rail transit line (to be determined later), either of which would follow the THRC to Newport News.

The THRC project (or a second stage of the Intermodal Connector project) will also add a new interchange on I-564 for direct access to the Norfolk Naval Air Station, and this interchange to Chambers Field Air Station is projected to cost $10.4 million for engineering, right-of-way and construction. So the Intermodal Connector will be the first stage of that portion of the THRC. The 2005-2010 VDOT Six-Year Program has the interchange project programmed for preliminary engineering, but not for right-of-way or construction.

The name "Intermodal Connector" is derived from the fact that the new highway will provide a direct truck interface between the central part of the port and the regional Interstate and arterial highway system, plus provide better regional access to the port for port employees via cars and buses, plus provide better vehicular circulation in the port by completing Virginia Avenue, plus eliminate the railroad grade crossing on Hampton Boulevard that is a few hundred feet south of the proposed crossing of the Intermodal Connector, plus in a future second stage provide a direct interchange between I-564 and the Naval Air Station for cars, trucks and buses that access that facility. So the Intermodal Connector will facilitate the interchange of cargo and people between the transportation modes of road, railroad, aviation, and marine.

VDOT's news release on October 27, 2000, "Transportation department hosts public meeting on I-564 Intermodal Connector", had these excerpts (blue text):
The hearing will allow the public to review and comment on the proposed roadway, which will provide a connection from I-564 to Norfolk International Terminals and Norfolk Naval Station. The highway link will improve access to those facilities and reduce vehicle and heavy truck traffic along nearby roads. It does not include a connection to Hampton Boulevard.

VDOT received an unsolicited PPTA proposal from Skanska/Washington/BAM (SWB), on June 30, 2004, to develop Candidate Build Alternative 9. Fluor Virginia, Inc. submitted a competing proposal to develop Candidate Build Alternative 9 on October 7, 2004. Each consortium proposes beginning construction in 2007 and completing all construction by 2013, and SWB says that they can develop the entire project for $3.671 billion, and Fluor Virginia says that they can develop the entire project for $3.18064 billion.

These are unsolicited PPTA Conceptual Proposals, and the next stage in the PPTA process is for VDOT to evaluate the two Conceptual Proposals, and then to decide whether to invite the submission a PPTA Detailed Proposal from neither, or from one, or from both proposers.

First I will summarize the SWB proposal, then the Fluor Virginia proposal.

Third Hampton Roads Crossing - Conceptual Proposal, on VDOT website. Quote (in blue text):
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) received an unsolicited proposal from Skanska/Washington/BAM (SWB) pursuant to the Public-Private Transportation Act (the Act). The SWB team is led by a joint venture of Skanska USA, Inc. (Skanska), Washington Group International (Washington), and Royal BAM Group nv (BAM). The scope of the project includes designing, building, financing, operating and maintaining the project, consisting of approximately 13-miles of limited access expressway in addition to widening approximately 15-miles of interstate highway. The project will cross Hampton Roads and the Elizabeth River via trestles and two new tunnels.

See the above URL for link to "Skanska Proposal".

Excerpts from the SWB proposal (in blue text), followed by my comments in black text:

Introduction – Skanska/Washington/BAM (SWB), a joint venture of Skanska USA, Inc. (Skanska), Washington Group International (Washington) and Royal BAM Group nv (BAM) is submitting an unsolicited proposal for the development, design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the Third Hampton Roads Crossing. This conceptual proposal is submitted in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) implementing guidelines for the Virginia Public Private Transportation Act of 1995. This conceptual proposal is based upon the Major Investment Study (MIS), the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the 2001 Record of Decision. The design team of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. and Jacobs Civil, Inc. (Jacobs) (formerly JE Sverdrup) will serve as the engineer-of-record. The SWB Team members have been involved with the design and/or construction of all of the tunnels and bridge-tunnels in the Hampton Roads area.

Consistency with Concept - The EIS provides an estimate of $4.4 billion to construct the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Locally Preferred Alternative that was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. In 2000 VDOT anticipated that the project could be completed in 2014. This conceptual proposal contains alternatives that dramatically reduce the project’s cost and accelerates the completion date of the Third Hampton Roads Crossing. The concepts that are offered by this conceptual proposal are consistent with the Third Hampton Roads Crossing MIS and EIS. Specific recommendations for the project’s financing and development are included.

Environmental - All known environmental issues can be prudently and economically mitigated based upon SWB’s proposed develop-finance-design-build-operate-maintain approach and SWB’s experience with addressing the same issues on previous projects. The entire Conceptual Proposal is based upon the Record of Decision (ROD) issued on June 4, 2001.

In the two 2004 PPTA proposals, there are various options for the possible re-tolling of some or all of the existing crossings of the Hampton Roads estuary. If the I-64 HRBT, the US-17 JRB, the I-664 MMMBT, and the new I-564 Hampton Roads crossing each were tolled, that could greatly enhance the revenue available for the Third Hampton Roads Crossing project. (Technically the US-17 JRB crosses the James River, not Hampton Roads, but I am including it since it augments the I-664 MMMBT and the I-64 HRBT, and it is the same body of water).

My recommendation would be to toll all 4 crossings with electronic toll collection, with dynamic pricing (congestion pricing, with all the revenues utilized only on the 4 crossings) based on time-of-day and day-of-week, designed to optimize the usage of all 4 crossings, with a price structure that would pay for the entire total cost (debt service on toll revenue bonds) of the Third Hampton Roads Crossing project, justifying the re-tolling of the JRB and HRBT on the basis that the Third Crossing would provide them traffic relief as well as revenues for maintenance, and for providing an adjustable optimal traffic balance over all 4 crossings.

The 6-year federal transportation bill that is in development in Congress, is said to be likely to provide much more federal funding for the state DOTs; plus much more generous provisions for tolling segments of toll-free Interstate highway, if there is a clear need. Given that all 5 branches of the U.S. military have major bases in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area, there would seem to be justification for at least some portion (even if it is a lesser percentage) of the project to be funded by specially-granted federal funds, above and beyond the regular FHWA federal aid allocations to VDOT.

I've always thought it very impressive how VDOT was able to build these 3 elaborate and expensive Hampton Roads highway crossings, and without tolls since 1976. Up until now (July 2004 article update), I didn't want to recommend tolls being placed on these crossings, but I have decided to come out in favor of doing that, because I believe that is the best way to secure the revenues needed to provide the needed expensive Hampton Roads expansion projects, revenues that come from direct road user fees, with the technology now available to utilize open-highway electronic toll collection and dynamic pricing. "Hampton Roads Highway Crossings", in my opinion, qualifies as a single highway system in and of itself, deserving its own self-funding revenue mechanism. This would also free up some of VDOT's regular highway funding, that can be utilized to build other needed Hampton Roads highway projects.

There would be benefits to having the same toll on all of the Hampton Roads crossings, or no toll on any of them. The Third Crossing (Candidate Build Alternative 9) provides future relief to the other Hampton Roads crossings, so the users of those other crossings will benefit. The Hampton Roads Crossing Study's Draft EIS, which was approved by VDOT and FHWA in October 1999, determined that without additional capacity across Hampton Roads, that by 2015 the current "rush hour" level of high congestion on the I-64 HRBT would last all day long on weekdays from about 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM, and in much of the daylight hours on the weekends; also that the number of incidents causing delays of 15 minutes or longer at the HRBT could reach 21 per day or nearly one every hour. Building the Third Crossing (CBA 9) would greatly reduce the number of congested hours on the I-64 HRBT in 2015, so those HRBT users would benefit from the Third Crossing.

Links to My Website Articles