Prepared for the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, the Peninsula Planning District Commission (these two now form the Hampton Roads Planning and Development Commission, or HRPDC), and the Virginia Department of Highways (now VDOT).

Prepared by Alan M.Voorhees & Associates, Inc and Hammer, Greene, Siler and Associates, October 1970.

[Webmaster's Note:  This document, prepared for the precursors to the Hampton Roads Planning and Development Commission (HRPDC), reflects a summary of the late-1960s transportation plans for the Peninsula and Southside, and examines ways to improve access across the Hampton Roads.]

Summary

Objective

In the past, the lack of free movement across Hampton Roads has prevented the Region from achieving its full economic and social potential.  The object of this study is to provide measures of the economic, social, and transport impacts of alternative ways of providing transportation service across Hampton Roads and to guide state and local agencies in the development of the future transportation and land use programs associated with Hampton Roads crossings.

Issues

With this study objective, the Joint Transportation Committee formulated and adopted a set of specific questions or issues which focused the technical aspects of the study:

    - What are the economic and transport impacts when the Peninsula and Southeastern subregions act as one?
    - Are additional crossings of Hampton Roads required to achieve the full economic potential of the region?
    - If additional crossings are required, where should they be?
    - What are the implications, both economic and transport, of additional crossings on the local jurisdiction comprising the Hampton Roads Region?
    - What are the financial implications of providing for additional crossings?

Findings and Conclusions

Significant findings and conclusions result from the analysis of existing conditions:

• The Hampton Roads and the present tolls are a socioeconomic barrier that has restricted the development potentials in the Peninsula and Southeastern subregions.
• If the intra- and interregional "terms of trade" were improved by the removal of the socioeconomic barrier, the market range for business would expand and improve socioeconomic linkages and accessibility would provide opportunities to expand business within the two subregional economies.
• Physical separation and lack of adequate accessibility results in 1) a reduced labor market for large employment concentrations which seriously constrains their ability to expand and increases their labor cost, and 2) a reduced market for the small consumer-serving businesses which limits their ability to take advantage of economies of scale to compete and expand their facilities, and 3) a reduced retail market which restricts the level of consumer services and the depth and level of merchandise that retailers can offer.
• The average worker in the Hampton Roads Region is faced with reduced employment opportunities that can only be overcome by incurring additional transportation costs.

To overcome this barrier, traffic and the economic impacts of five alternative methods of providing transportation service across Hampton Roads were examined.

[Webmaster's Note:  In the following five alternatives, the "third crossing" represents what became today's I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Bridge Tunnel, with the exception of the 1970 "third crossing" was proposed to follow the western edge of Craney Island instead of today's MMBT routing that is further west.]

Alternative 1 consists of the combined 1985 recommended plans from the regional transportation studies in the Southeastern and Peninsula Planning Areas, a third crossing between Newport News and the Southeastern subregion in the vicinity of Craney Island, and direct, toll free connections, from the third crossing to the downtown areas of Norfolk and Portsmouth.  In this alternative, the James River Bridge, the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, and the third crossing were assumed to be free and capable of handling traffic demands.

Alternative 2 assumes that the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel and James River Bridge are toll free.  This alternative was designed to determine the traffic demands on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel without a third crossing under toll free conditions.  This is the minimum alternative because it assumed no additional facilities over and above those already planned.

Alternative 3 provides for a third crossing between Newport News and the proposed Western Freeway in Portsmouth.  It assumes that the tolls on the Elizabeth River Midtown Tunnel are removed.  In addition, it was assumed that the third crossing would have tolls sufficient to amortize the cost of a third crossing and the debt remaining on the Elizabeth River Midtown Tunnel.  However, both the James River Bridge and the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel were assumed to be toll free.  This alternative was designed to determine if a third crossing could be self-supporting as a toll facility.

Alternative 4 is the same configuration as Alternative 3, with the exception that the Midtown Tunnel would retain its present tolls and the toll on the third crossing would only amortize that facility.  In this alternative, the impact of Elizabeth River tolls on 1995 traffic crossing Hampton Roads was examined.  The other facilities crossing Hampton Roads were considered toll free.

Alternative 5 consists of an all-free third crossing with a direct connection from the northern tip of Craney Island to the Belleville-Bowers Hill connector.  This test was designed to measure the impact of providing direct service to the outer Metropolitan Loop serving the Portsmouth fringe, Nansemond county, and the City of Chesapeake while tying into the Western Freeway that provides access to the core areas of Norfolk and Portsmouth.

Economic Impacts

The estimated capital costs associated with each of these alternatives is summarized below.  As indicated, the capital costs vary from a high of $356 million (1970 dollars) for Alternative 1 to a low of $113 million (1970 dollars) for Alternative 2.

Table S-1.  Summary of Economic Impacts:

The economic impacts for each of the alternatives are summarized in Table S-1 (above) in terms of increases in 1995 population and employment for each subregion over a baseline set of conditions.  The 1995 baseline economic projection assumes status quo conditions with respect to facilities crossing Hampton Roads.  An examination of this table from an economic viewpoint indicates the following findings and conclusions:

• The expected impact on the region varies from a 3.4 percent increase in employment and population in Alternative 1 to 0.5 percent in Alternative 2.
• In terms of annual payroll the increase of 23,700 jobs in Alternative 1 represents approximately $150 million.  In terms of assessed valuation, the increase in population and employment in Alternative 1 would provide an increase of $340 million.
• Except for Alternative 2, the relative impact of the improvements on the Peninsula economy is approximately 70 percent of the impact on the Southeastern economy.
• If no other facilities are provided across Hampton Roads by 1995 (Alternative 2) and the existing crossings are made toll free, it is estimated that the average daily traffic on this four-lane facility would approach 72,000 vehicles per day under very congested conditions, requiring modification of people's traveling habits across Hampton Roads.
• Alternative 3 increases the pressures on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel even though a third crossing is provided.  The reason for this is that the elimination of tolls on the Elizabeth River in conjunction with a $0.97 toll on the third crossing results in a greater increase in the area served by the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel.
• Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 relieve the projected congestion on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel.  The greatest relief is provided by Alternative 1.

Traffic Impact

Table S-2, Characteristics of 1995 Traffic Crossing Hampton Roads:

Using the traffic forecasting methodology described in Chapter III and the economic impacts analyses, the traffic impacts of each of the alternatives were determined.  Table S-2 (above) summarizes characteristics of 1995 traffic crossing Hampton Roads.  From a transportation viewpoint, the following findings and conclusions emerged:

• The average length (in miles) of vehicle trips crossing Hampton Roads for the alternatives tested ranges from 21.0 to 23.6, a variation of over 10 percent.
• The greatest length of vehicle trips for Hampton Roads crossing occurs under Alternative 2.  It should be noted that Alternative 2 also has the lowest volume of traffic crossing Hampton Roads - 134,300 Average Daily Traffic (ADT).
• Alternative 1 has the greatest traffic volume - 177,000 ADT - and a vehicular trip length of 21.5 miles.
• By 1995, the traffic demand on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel will be over 96,000 vehicles per day, which is approximately 50 percent over the proposed four-lane capacity.
• The expanded free Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel will begin to become congested by 1980.
• Alternative 1 provides the greatest interaction between the subregions, as the potential crossings under the alternative are 22 percent greater than any of the other alternatives studied.  However, the total traffic on the third crossing and the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel combined would exceed the combined free flow capacity of these two facilities by approximately 25 percent, if the third crossing were built as a four-lane facility.  Under this alternative, most of the potential demand would be satisfied; however, the third crossing would experience considerable congestion.
• Neither Alternative 4 nor 5 have demands in excess of capacity on the third crossing; however, the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel is over capacity in each situation, particularly in Alternative 4.  Under these alternatives the potential demand would be accommodated by the two facilities, but the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel would operate over stable flow (approximating low level of service).
• Of the alternatives studied, Alternative 5 appears to achieve the best balance between the demands and capacities of the two facilities.  This alternative provides for a free third crossing, but unlike Alternative 1 does not provide a toll-free direct connection between the third crossing and Norfolk.

Financing

One of the major issues associated with the provision of a third crossing was the question of financing.  To determine whether this facility could be self-supporting through revenue bonds, a special analysis was made.  The results of this analysis indicated that the third crossing cannot be self-supporting, under any toll rate structure and would as a minimum require a grant capital subsidy of $80 million.

Based on the testing of the traffic and economic impacts of the alternatives investigated and the criteria of the Hampton Roads Joint Transportation Study Committee, the following conclusions and recommendations were developed:

• A third crossing of Hampton Roads is both desirable in economic terms and required in transportation terms.  If the present plans to expand the James River Bridge and the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel and to make them free facilities are implemented, a third crossing will be required by 1980 to relieve the congestion on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel.
• To relieve the future congestion on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, a toll of no more than $0.50 should be charged on the third crossing.  From the analysis of economic impact, tolls on the third crossing reduce the economic development potentials that will result from the provision of the third crossing.  Finally, even if a toll that maximizes revenues - $0.80 - is placed on a third crossing, it can only liquidate approximately half of the required $151 million investment for the third crossing required.  Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the third crossing be minimized and that it be provided as a toll-free facility.
• The only opportunities for minimizing the costs of the third crossing are in the extent of approach and distribution facilities initially provided.  While there appear to be both economic and transportation benefits associated with providing a direct link from the third crossing to Norfolk, these benefits do not appear to warrant the expenditure of an additional $90 million.
• It appears, from the alternatives studied, that the need for the North-South Freeway, as a connection to the third crossing through Newport News to distribute traffic utilizing this proposed Hampton Roads Crossing, substantially increases the existing need for this freeway facility.  In addition, the Western Freeway and the Bowers Hill-Belleville Connector, which are currently needed to complete the Metropolitan Loop, are also needed to distribute traffic using the third crossing to the Southeastern subregion.
• With respect to the alignment of the third crossing connection in the Southeast Region, the 1995 economic and traffic analysis indicated that the facility should provide direct access to Craney Island and be oriented to the maximum extent possible toward Central Portsmouth and Norfolk.
• Preliminary investigation of such a location indicated that it would be virtually impossible to construct a freeway facility without causing considerable property damage.  The final location should be developed by a detailed location study capable of evaluating the engineering feasibility and the environmental impact the freeway would have on the area through which it passes.  The Department of Highways should initiate a detailed location study at an early date on the segment between the eastern terminus of the North-South Freeway in Newport News and the Western Freeway in the Southeastern Virginia Planning District so that the local governments in the areas traversed can reserve rights of way for the established location.

[Webmaster's Note:  The rest of the study report will be added as a future project.]

Return to Hampton Roads Notes
Return to the Virginia Highways Project