DOCSLIB.ORG

South Norfolk Jordan Bridge a Private Proposal by FIGG Bridge Developers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Norfolk Jordan Bridge a Private Proposal by FIGG Bridge Developers South Norfolk Jordan Bridge a private proposal by FIGG Bridge Developers Chesapeake City Council Update June 23, 2009 A Private Bridge Proposal To: • Restore a critical regional transportation link • Reconnect South Norfolk and Portsmouth • Restore emergency response missing since 1986 • Provide a non-tunnel emergency evacuation route • Support the federal military interest in the region • Eliminate congestion and pollution caused by lift bridges • Build a toll bridge as approved by Chesapeake, the General Assembly and the Governor • With private money build a new modern Jordan Bridge that otherwise would not be built Creating Bridges As Art® Project led by FIGG Bridge Developers Exclusively Designing and Building Bridges for 30 Years FIGG Bridges in 38 states and 4 countries Over 300 Bridge Awards MINNEAPOLIS NEW JERSEY BOSTON MAINE Fixed Constraints • Fixed termini in Chesapeake and Portsmouth • Must fit on property owned by FIGG to comply with City agreement and Acts of the General Assembly • No right of eminent domain • Maximum mainline grade 5% for ADA compliance • Must cross over RR tracks • Must complete in-river construction before February • Must maintain firm fixed prices from local contractors • Must maintain deadline and budget - no exception Timeline • Dec 17: Proposal presented to Mayor, Council members • and city staff • Dec 23: Proposal formally received by Chesapeake Council • Jan 27: Proposal approved by Chesapeake Council • Feb 24: General Assembly authorizes emergency project • Mar 27: Governor signs emergency replacement into law • May 5: Main span removed at private cost • May 26: Coast Guard application submitted • Jun 5: Coast Guard public notice issued • Jul 6: Coast Guard public comment period closes Main Span Removal Placing barge support system 600 tons float away RR bridgeRR north of Jordan 142 ft 145 ft. vertical clearance ft. vertical 145 provides Bridge Norfolk Jordan South New After removal After Location and Characteristics Multi-use 8’ 12’ 12’ 8’ Shoulder 8’ Text Concept Rendering of Modern South Norfolk Jordan Bridge New South Norfolk Jordan Bridge Old Jordan Bridge Two 12’ lanes 2 Narrow lanes, Two 8’ safety shoulders No shoulders 8’ ADA compliant barrier-protected sidewalk 4’ unprotected sidewalk 200’ 365’ 200’ 150’ 150’ Typical Typical 145’ Above MHW 225’ Channel Fender System High level fixed bridge (no lift span) All electronic toll collection Tolls paid only to cross Elizabeth River Horizontal & Vertical clearances match old bridge 5% Grade meets ADA requirements Landscaped approaches Vertical and Horizontal Clearances South Norfolk Jordan Bridge shown consistently since Dec. 17, 2008 Southern Branch Elizabeth River 2 Highway lift bridges and 3 RR bridges, excluding closed Jordan Bridge 10 terminal facilities and 3 lift bridges are south of the N&W RR Bridge: Vert. Clearance: 135 ft. Horiz. Clearance: 220 ft. South Norfolk Jordan Bridge: Vert. Clearance: 145 ft. Horiz. Clearance: 225 ft. New Gilmerton Bridge: Vert. Clearance: 135 ft. Horiz. Clearance: 125 ft. ultimate horiz: 222 ft. South Norfolk Jordan Bridge Vert: 145 ft. Horiz: 225 ft. RR bridges north and south provide less vertical (142 ft.) or less vertical and horizontal clearance (v=135ft. h=220ft.) New Gilmerton Bridge Vert: 135 ft. Horiz: 125 ft. ultimate: 222 ft. South Norfolk Jordan Bridge Vert: 145 ft. Horiz: 225 ft. I-64 High Rise Bridge Vert: Unlimited Horiz: 125 ft South Norfolk Jordan Bridge Vert: 145 ft. Horiz: 225 ft. Bottom Line on Clearances All 5 existing bridges crossing the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River including the new Gilmerton Bridge impose greater vertical or horizontal restrictions than the modern South Norfolk Jordan Bridge. Regional Benefits Key Benefits •Does not require the use of any taxpayer money - 100% privately financed •Does not remove tax-supported funds from any other local, regional, or state project •FIGG owns and removes decommissioned bridge - saves taxpayers $2 - $3 million •FIGG designs, builds, operates and maintains new fixed high-rise bridge •Provides unrestricted water and highway access - No bridge lifts •Maintains maximum vertical clearance and adds 5-ft of horizontal clearance •Maintains military readiness; only direct connection to Norfolk Naval Shipyard • Maintains military readiness; only direct connection to Norfolk Naval Shipyard • Provides better vertical or horizontal clearance than 5 remaining lift bridges • Removes all low-level obstructions from the waterway • Poses no financial risk to City, Region, State or Federal government • Opens to traffic 18 months after construction starts • Restores fire, police and emergency response access to South Norfolk • Restores critical missing link in regional transportation network • Employs 150 people using local contractors and materials - immediate stimulus Public Hearings, Meetings and Local Interest December 24, 2008 January 27, 2009 The Virginia Pilot News Coverage December 27, 2008 January 28, 2009 The Virginia Pilot News Coverage April 17, 2009 The Jordan Bridge's closing jammed up local headlines in November, now plans are moving ahead to rebuild the decaying cross-over between Chesapeake and Portsmouth. That's just one of the many issues a former Virginia Department of Transportation Commissioner talks about on a special edition of "What Matters." Cathy Lewis goes on-on- one with Phil Shucet about Hampton Roads' transportation: past, present, and future Cathy Lewis What Matters TV News Coverage April 17, 2009 Contacts, Hearings, Meetings, Requested Briefings Dec 2008 - Mar 2009 Dec 23 Chesapeake City Council Public Hearing Jan 6 Chesapeake Council of Civic Organizations Jan 12 South Norfolk Civic League Jan 13 Portsmouth City Council Jan 21 Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce Jan 22 South Norfolk Revitalization Commission Jan 23 Norfolk Naval Shipyard - Conference Call Jan 27 Chesapeake City Council Public Hearing Jan 28 Receives ship traffic info from Va. Maritime Assoc. Feb 21 Chesapeake Taxpayers Alliance Feb 24 Portsmouth Port & Industrial Commission Feb 28 Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance Mar 11 Chesapeake Port Authority Mar 13 Chesapeake Econ. Development Advisory Committee Mar 19 Hampton Roads Black Chamber of Commerce Contacts, Hearings, Meetings, Requested Briefings Apr - Jun 2009 Apr 7 USCG Notice to Mariners Jordan Bridge Main Span Apr 8 Chesapeake Planning Commission Public Hearing Apr 17 Thinking Out Loud ; Chesapeake Channel 48 Apr 17 What Matters ; Cathy Lewis; WHRO Apr 20 Elizabeth River Project Apr 22 HR Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Apr 27 Chesapeake Bicycle and Trails Committee May 14 Chesapeake Historical Commission May 18 WTS - Advancing Women in Transportation, Richmond Jun 3 Virginia Maritime Association Jun 8 South Norfolk Civic League Jun 10 Chesapeake Port Authority Jun 17 Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization Jun 18 Chesapeake Economic Development Authority ScheduleSchedule Remaining Chesapeake property transaction complete by June 30 AWI property acquisition complete by June 30 Coast Guard Public Notice period closes July 6 Start construction from Portsmouth side in August 2009 Critical to start on-time to maintain prices and financing Open for traffic before end of 2010 Property Transfers and Easements • Completed to date : • Deed conveying to FIGG the Chesapeake-owned land in Portsmouth • Deeds conveying to FIGG the existing Jordan Bridge • Environmental disclosure letter to FIGG • Temporary access easements to FIGG over and across Chesapeake property for all purposes relating to the removal and replacement of the Jordan Bridge • Non-disclosure agreement to allow sharing of technical information with FIGG Historic Preservation Efforts • Bridge logs/journals catalogued and transferred to Central Library • Signs, plaques, and small equipment secured and stored in safe • Negotiating with demolition company to obtain a small portion of the bridge structure (tower cap) • Video commemorating old Jordan Bridge • Will work with community to develop historic preservation plan Coast Guard Permitting/Public Endorsements • Chesapeake Port Authority • Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization • Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce • Chesapeake Economic Development Authority • Virginia Beach Vision • Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facility Alliance • Neighboring Jurisdictions - forthcoming • Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads – scheduled for June 25, 2009 Public Information Efforts •USCG Public Notice posted on City webpage •Online comment sheet www.cityofchesapeake.net •Comment sheets distributed to libraries and community centers •Coverage on Channel 48-WCTV •Comments due to City by July 1st •Comments due to USCG by July 6 th www.cityofchesapeake.net.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Point of Access Study
    Prepared for: I-95/Scudder Falls Bridge Improvement Project Technical Memorandum No. 28 FINAL POINT OF ACCESS STUDY Contract C-393A, Capital Project No. CP0301A Prepared by: Philadelphia, PA In association with: HNTB Corporation STV Inc. Gannett Fleming, Inc. A.D. Marble & Company Kise Straw & Kolodner, Inc. Riverfront Associates, Inc. November, 2012 1 2 Technical Memorandum No. 28 – Final Point of Access Study Contract C-393A, Capital Project No. CP0301A I-95/Scudder Falls Bridge Improvement Project TABLE OF CONTENTS A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, INTRODUCTION AMD REQUIREMENTS ... 1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 1 Purpose of Access......................................................................... 1 Summary of Findings .................................................................... 2 II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 7 Project Description .............................................................. 7 Study Area Description ........................................................ 7 Project Area Description .................................................... 10 Project Purpose and Need .................................................. 11 III. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF ACCESS ..................................... 12 B. ENGINEERING STUDY ............................................................. 17 I. CURRENT CONDITIONS ........................................................... 17 Roadway Network
    [Show full text]
  • Elizabeth River Crossings Study
    EElizabethlizabeth RivRiverer CCrrossingsossings SStudytudy T08-07 June 2008 HAMPTON ROADS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Chesapeake Poquoson * Clifton E. Hayes, Jr. * Charles W. Burgess, Jr. Gloucester County Portsmouth * Lane B. Ramsey * Douglas L. Smith Hampton Suffolk * Randall A. Gilliland * Selena Cuffee-Glenn Isle Of Wight County Virginia Beach * Stan D. Clark * Louis R. Jones James City County Williamsburg * Bruce C. Goodson * Jackson C. Tuttle, Ii Newport News York County * Joe S. Frank * James O. McReynolds Norfolk * Paul D. Fraim Hampton Roads Planning District Commission * Dwight L. Farmer, Executive Director/Secretary Transportation District Commission Of Hampton Roads * Michael S. Townes, President/Chief Executive Officer Virginia Department Of Transportation * Dennis W. Heuer, District Administrator - Hampton Roads District Williamsburg Area Transport * Mark D. Rickards, Executive Director Federal Highway Administration Robert Fonseca-Martinez, Division Administrator - Virginia Division Federal Transit Administration Letitia A. Thompson, Regional Administrator, Region 3 Federal Aviation Administration Terry Page, Manager, Washington Airports District Office Virginia Department Of Aviation Randall P. Burdette, Director Virginia Port Authority Jerry A. Bridges, Executive Director *Voting Member PROJECT STAFF Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary Camelia Ravanbakht HRMPO Deputy Executive Director Robert B. Case Principal Transportation Engineer Andy C. Pickard Senior Transportation Engineer Marla K. Frye Administrative
    [Show full text]
  • South Norfolk Jordan Bridge (“SNJB”) Is a 5,372 Ft Fixed Bridge That Connects the City of Chesapeake to the City of Portsmouth Over the Elizabeth River In
    TOLL REVENUE NEW BUILD / REPLACEMENT SOUTH NORFOLK PRIVATIZATION PRIVATE FINANCING UNSOLICITED BID JORDAN BRIDGE CHESAPEAKE, VA The South Norfolk Jordan Bridge (“SNJB”) is a 5,372 ft fixed bridge that connects the City of Chesapeake to the City of Portsmouth over the Elizabeth River in Virginia. The City of Chesapeake had decommissioned the original Jordan Bridge in November 2008. An unsolicited proposal submitted by United Bridge Partners (“UBP”) to replace the Jordan Bridge with a new, privately owned bridge was approved by the City of Chesapeake in January 20091 by executing an Acquisition and Development Agreement (“ADA”) between UBP and the City of Chesapeake. As part of the ADA, UBP assumed responsibility to demolish the existing Jordan Bridge, aquired the right of way and easments associated with the bridge, and the right to toll, design, construct, finance, operate and assume ownership of a new bridge and associated tolling facilities on the SNJB. The construction of the SNJB was reported to be privately financed. Project revenue on the SNJB comes from tolls, set by the private operator with no defined limit, which are collected electronically on the bridge2. Note: the facts of this case study were reviewed by UBP. We have provided Chesapeake footnotes to describe instances where UBP disputes information in the public domain. BACKGROUND + PROJECT DRIVERS The Elizabeth River Corridor between Midtown Tunnel and High Rise Bridge in southern eastern Virginia near the Chesapeake Bay serves approximately 250,000 Figure 1: Elizabeth River Crossings. vehicle trip crossings per weekday. It is a growing corridor that primarily serves Source: Pickard, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Projects in Virginia Beach
    Hampton Roads 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan TTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION PPROJECTROJECT PPRIORITIESRIORITIES ProjectProject InformationInformation GuideGuide TPO TTPORANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION T 11-01 June 2011 HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary VOTING MEMBERS: CHESAPEAKE JAMES CITY COUNTY PORTSMOUTH Alan P. Krasnoff Bruce C. Goodson Kenneth I. Wright GLOUCESTER COUNTY NEWPORT NEWS SUFFOLK Christian D. Rilee McKinley Price Linda T. Johnson HAMPTON NORFOLK VIRGINIA BEACH Molly J. Ward Paul D. Fraim William D. Sessoms, Jr. ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY POQUOSON WILLIAMSBURG Stan D. Clark W. Eugene Hunt, Jr. Clyde Haulman YORK COUNTY Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA SENATE The Honorable John C. Miller The Honorable Yvonne B. Miller MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES The Honorable G. Glenn Oder The Honorable John A. Cosgrove TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS Philip A. Shucet, President/Chief Executive Officer WILLIAMSBURG AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Mark D. Rickards, Executive Director VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Dennis W. Heuer, District Administrator – Hampton Roads District VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Amy Inman, Manager of Transit Planning VIRGINIA PORT AUTHORITY Jerry A. Bridges, Executive Director HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION NON-VOTING MEMBERS: CHESAPEAKE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY NORFOLK SUFFOLK William E. Harrell W. Douglas Caskey Marcus Jones Selena Cuffee-Glenn GLOUCESTER COUNTY JAMES CITY COUNTY POQUOSON VIRGINIA BEACH Brenda G. Garton Robert C. Middaugh J. Randall Wheeler James K. Spore HAMPTON NEWPORT NEWS PORTSMOUTH WILLIAMSBURG Mary Bunting Neil A. Morgan Kenneth L. Chandler Jackson C. Tuttle YORK COUNTY James O. McReynolds FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Irene Rico, Division Administrator – Virginia Division Letitia A.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 1 Study
    DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION SOUTHERLY CROSSINGS CORRIDOR STUDY PHASE I TRANSPORTATION STUDY Prepared for: DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION Prepared by: THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. EAST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY June 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Southerly Crossings Corridor Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................Executive Summary Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY METHODOLOGY.............................................1-1 1.1 Background.........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Objectives of the Southerly Crossings Corridor Study .....................................1-3 1.3 Traffic Forecasting & Analysis Methodology................................................1-3 1.3.1 Overview.............................................................................................................1-3 1.3.2 Travel Demand Forecasting ................................................................................1-4 1.4 Alternatives Development and Screening .....................................................1-7 1.5 Alternatives Analysis-Measures of Effectiveness .......................................... 1-10 1.5.1 Level of Service...............................................................................................1-10 1.5.2 Construction Cost Estimates............................................................................1-11 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..............................................................................2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of Breeding Peregrine Falcons on Bridges
    INVESTIGATION OF BREEDING PEREGRINE FALCONS ON BRIDGES THE CENTER FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY Investigation of breeding peregrine falcons on bridges Bryan D. Watts, PhD Marian U. Watts The Center for Conservation Biology College of William and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University Recommended Citation: Watts, B. D. and M. U. Watts. 2017. Investigation of breeding peregrine falcons on bridges. The Center for Conservation Biology. Technical Report Series, CCBTR-17-01. College of William and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University, Williamsburg, VA. 38 pp. Project Partners: Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia Transportation Research Council Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dominion Power College of William and Mary Virginia Commonwealth University The Center for Conservation Biology Front Cover: Female peregrine falcon with eggs in nest box on the James River Bridge. Photo by Bryan Watts. The Center for Conservation Biology is an organization dedicated to discovering innovative solutions to environmental problems that are both scientifically sound and practical within today’s social context. Our philosophy has been to use a general systems approach to locate critical information needs and to plot a deliberate course of action to reach what we believe are essential information endpoints. Table of Contents Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________________________________ 3 BACKGROUND
    [Show full text]
  • Hampton Roads Long‐Range Transportation Plan: List of Projects
    Hampton Roads Long‐Range Transportation Plan: List of Projects Approved and Adopted July 21, 2016 Updated October 18 , 2018 REGIONAL PRIORITY PROJECTS The following section contains the HRTPO Board Approved project sequencing of the Regional Priority Projects based on project readiness for inclusion in the 2040 Long‐Range Transportation Plan. Planned funding sources for these projects include: the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund (HRTF), HRTAC/HRTF Bonds, HRTAC Toll Revenues, and SMART SCALE (formerly House Bill 2) High‐Priority Projects Program forecasted revenues between 2016‐2040. 1 Sequencing Based on Project Readiness • I-64 Peninsula Widening I • I-64/I-264 Interchange II • I-64 Southside Widening/High-Rise Bridge - Phase 1 III • I-64/Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Widening • I-64 Southside Widening/High-Rise Bridge - Phase 2 IV • Bowers Hill Interchange • I-64/Fort Eustis Blvd Interchange V • US Route 460/58/13 Connector Approved by the HRTPO Board at its February 18, 2016 Meeting. 2 Estimated Estimated Group Project YOE* Cost Opening Year I-64 Peninsula Widening Segment 1 $123 Million 2017 Segment 2 $190 Million 2019 Segment 3 $311 Million 2022 I I-64/I-264 (including Witchduck Rd Interchange) Phase 1 $157 Million 2019 Phase 2 $190 Million 2021 Phase 3 Study $10 Million 2018 I-64 Southside Widening (including High Rise Bridge) II Phase 1 $600 Million 2021 Hampton Roads Crossing $3 Million Regional Connectors Study 2020 III (+ $4 Million Contingency) I-64/Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Widening $3.8 Billion 2024 I-64 Southside Widening
    [Show full text]
  • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
    Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3: Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 3.15 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 3.15.1 Regulatory Context and Methodology NEPA legislation does not mention indirect or cumulative impacts; however, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA address federal agency responsibilities applicable to indirect and cumulative considerations, analysis, and documentation requirements (40 CFR 1508.25) for the environmental consequences section of an EIS (40 CFR 1502.16) (FHWA, 2014). In addition to CEQ’s regulations, indirect and cumulative effects assessment is conducted in accordance with the requirements and processes outlined in 23 CFR Part 771, FHWA Interim Guidance: Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in NEPA (2003), FHWA Position Paper on Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment (1992), FHWA’s Questions and Answers on Considering Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in the NEPA Process (2015), the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 466: Desk Reference for Estimating the Indirect Effect of Proposed Transportation Projects (TRB, 2002), NCHRP Project 25-25 Task 22: Land Use Forecasting for Indirect Impacts Analysis (TRB, 2005), NCHRP Project 25-25 Task 11: Secondary/Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (TRB, 2006), as well as CEQ’s Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997) and Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis (2005). CEQ defines indirect effects as “…effects which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8[b]). Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems” (40 CFR 1508.8[b]).
    [Show full text]
  • Hampton Roads Regional Bridge Study
    HamptonHampton RRoadsoads RRegionalegional BridgeBridge StudStudyy 20122012 UpdUpdaatete the heartbeat of H MPTON RO DS T P O November 2012 T12-14 HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary VOTING MEMBERS: CHESAPEAKE JAMES CITY COUNTY PORTSMOUTH Alan P. Krasnoff Mary K. Jones Kenneth I. Wright GLOUCESTER COUNTY NEWPORT NEWS SUFFOLK Christopher A. Hutson McKinley Price Linda T. Johnson HAMPTON NORFOLK VIRGINIA BEACH Molly J. Ward Paul D. Fraim William D. Sessoms, Jr. ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY POQUOSON WILLIAMSBURG Delores Dee-Dee Darden W. Eugene Hunt, Jr. Clyde Haulman YORK COUNTY Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA SENATE The Honorable Thomas K. Norment, Jr. The Honorable Frank W. Wagner MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES The Honorable John A. Cosgrove The Honorable Christopher P. Stolle TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS William E. Harrell, President/Chief Executive Officer WILLIAMSBURG AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Kevan Danker, Executive Director VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Dennis W. Heuer, District Administrator – Hampton Roads District VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Thelma Drake, Director VIRGINIA PORT AUTHORITY Vacant HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION NON-VOTING MEMBERS: CHESAPEAKE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY NORFOLK SUFFOLK WILLIAMSBURG Amar Dwarkanath W. Douglas Caskey Marcus Jones Selena Cuffee-Glenn Jackson C. Tuttle GLOUCESTER COUNTY JAMES CITY COUNTY POQUOSON VIRGINIA BEACH YORK COUNTY Brenda G. Garton Robert C. Middaugh J. Randall Wheeler James K. Spore James O. McReynolds HAMPTON NEWPORT NEWS PORTSMOUTH Mary Bunting Neil A. Morgan Brannon Godfrey FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Irene Rico, Division Administrator, Virginia Division Brigid Hynes-Cherin, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION Jeffrey W.
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Pricing and Its Relationship to Travel Demand, Elasticity, and Distribution of Economic Activities for Hampton Roads, Virginia
    TOLL PRICING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO TRAVEL DEMAND, ELASTICITY, AND DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES FOR HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA Salvatore J. Bellomo, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. This paper presents the effect of toll pricing on travel demand and distri­ bution of economic activities in the Hampton Roads area of southeastern Virginia. A methodology is described that projects simultaneously travel demand and distribution of population and employment. The 1°esults o.r test­ ing future alternative conditions for crossing Hampton Roads are used to illustrate the impact of changes in new facilities and toll pricing on travel demand, average vehicular trip length, trip purpose, and distribution of future population and employment. The findings in this paper offer an alter­ native method to the projection of a single-demand estimate used in most urban area transportation studies. The consideration for the elasticity of demand with respect to price described in this paper could be applied to the analysis of major facilities within urbanized areas or between major regions that are considering toll-pricing policies or broader transport-pricing policies. •PRICING POLICIES can be used by the transportation and urban planner to control travel demand and the distribution of economic activities. Roth (1) pointed out qualita­ tively how the road pricing of congestion could be used to reduce vehicular travel de­ mand. Golenburg and Keith (2) illustrated quantitatively through a simulation technique how the price on parking could be used to r educe automobile travel demand in Canberra, Australia. The purpose of this paper is to present quantitatively the effect of future toll-pricing schemes on the demand for highway travel and the distribution of economic activities in the Hampton Roads area of southeastern Virginia shown in Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Bridge Regulation: a Method of Mass Transit Financing and Air Quality Control Gerald M
    Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law Volume 16 January 1979 Toll Bridge Regulation: A Method of Mass Transit Financing and Air Quality Control Gerald M. Tierney Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerald M. Tierney, Toll Bridge Regulation: A Method of Mass Transit Financing and Air Quality Control, 16 Urb. L. Ann. 193 (1979) Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw/vol16/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TOLL BRIDGE REGULATION: A METHOD OF MASS TRANSIT FINANCING AND AIR QUALITY CONTROL GERALD M. TIERNE Y* The practice of charging tolls on bridges began before the reign of Charlemagne.' As the era of private enterprise flourished in Great Britain and the United States, tolls for travelling on roads and bridges became the rule rather than the exception.2 At one time al- most all the bridges in Great Britain charged tolls for passage,3 and many well-known bridges in the United States, built with private financing, charged tolls to provide a fair return on the construction investment.4 * Trial Attorney, Federal Highway Administration. B.A., Fordham University, 1969; J.D., Syracuse University, College of Law, 1972; LL.M., University of Mis- souri-Kansas City School of Law, 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Bridge Authority 1937-1977
    Guide to the Records of the Office of the Secretary of State Division of Archives and Records Management Olympia, Washington April 2004 1 Guide to the Records of the Washington State Toll Bridge Authority 1937 - 1977 Compiled by Kathleen Waugh Office of the Secretary of State Division of Archives and Records Management Olympia, Washington April 2004 2 INDEX History of Toll Bridge Authority . page 5 Scope and Content . page 8 Note on Arrangement . page 8 Toll Bridge Authority Subject Files . page 9 Files on Individual Bridges . page 13 History of Tacoma Narrows Bridge . page 37 Tunnels . page 63 Tacoma-Seattle-Everett Toll Road . page 64 3 4 TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY The Toll Bridge Authority was created by the Legislature in 1937. The state wanted to improve transportation routes by building bridges but had been hampered by restrictions regarding bonding in Article VIII of the state constitution. Therefore the Toll Bridge Authority was given the power to issue revenue bonds which were not limited by Article VIII. It was to select, fund, build and operate bridges which would probably not win approval in a statewide levy. The revenues from the operation of the bridges would pay off the bonds. The membership of the Authority originally consisted of the Governor, the State Auditor, the Director of the Public Service Commission, the Director of Highways, and the Director of the Department of Finance, Budget and Business. By the time the Authority was dissolved in 1977, the membership consisted of the Governor, two members of the State Highway Commission appointed by the Commission, and two other members appointed by the Governor.
    [Show full text]