JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY The Future of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel REPORT OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION The Future of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 18 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND 2003 Members of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Chairman Senator Kevin G. Miller Vice-Chairman Delegate Lacey E. Putney Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. Senator John H. Chichester Senator Charles J. Colgan Delegate M. Kirkland Cox Delegate Frank D. Hargrove, Sr. Delegate Johnny S. Joannou Delegate Dwight C. Jones Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. Delegate Harry J. Parrish Delegate John A. Rollison III Senator Walter A. Stosch Delegate Leo C. Wardrup, Jr. Mr. Walter J. Kucharski, Auditor of Public Accounts Director Philip A. Leone COPYRIGHT 2003, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Preface Since 1964, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel has provided the only direct highway link between the Eastern Shore and the Virginia mainland. Each year, it car- ries more than three million vehicles across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, from the City of Virginia Beach at its southern end, to Northampton County at the northern end. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District operates the facility, providing for capital improvements, maintenance, police and safety patrols, toll collection, and administrative services. Construction and operations have been funded almost entirely from bonds issued by the district and toll revenues collected on the facility. The State provides less than one million dollars annually for operations. Concerns of some Eastern Shore residents about the long-term economic im- pact of increased traffic resulting from recent toll discounts prompted the 2002 General Assembly to direct this study of the Bridge-Tunnel through House Joint Resolution 210. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) was directed to ex- amine the appropriate role of the facility in the economic growth of the Eastern Shore and the Commonwealth, the appropriate toll structure, and the efficiency of facility op- erations. Overall, the review found that the construction and operation of the Chesa- peake Bay Bridge-Tunnel has been a successful endeavor. The facility provides an es- sential link between the Eastern Shore and the mainland, supporting the agricultural economy on the Shore, and tourism on both sides of the bay. Given its importance to transportation in the region, the review also found that the appropriate role for the Bridge-Tunnel in economic growth is to ensure a safe, convenient, low-cost link be- tween the Shore and the mainland. The General Assembly has not authorized the Bridge-Tunnel district to involve itself in growth management or economic develop- ment, either as part of its operations or through the toll structure. The business and government leaders on the Eastern Shore interviewed for this study expect the local governments to be responsible for growth management, not the Bridge-Tunnel district. The review also found that the toll structure provides adequate revenue for operations, maintenance, and existing debt service. However, it may not provide ade- quate revenue for future capital expansion if parallel tunnels are needed by the year 2020. The report recommends that the district begin the process now for development of a long-range capital plan to address future facility needs and funding. Maintenance and operations of the facility were found generally appropriate. Improvements were recommended for toll and emergency staffing, facility security, major maintenance pro- jects, and administration of the district’s personnel management. On behalf of the Commission staff, I wish to express our appreciation for the assistance of the staffs of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, and the Accomack- Northampton Planning District Commission in the completion of this report. Philip A. Leone January 2, 2003 JLARC Report Summary as a toll facility by the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Vir­ ginia. The district and its governing commission were created by the Gen­ eral Assembly, and the State provides almost $1.0 million annually in urban street funding for the facility. Yet, the General Assembly has never reviewed the operations of the Bridge-Tunnel in its 38-year history. With the recent con­ The Future of the troversy surrounding the toll structure Chesapeake Bay and economic impact of the facility on the Eastern Shore, the 2002 General Bridge-Tunnel Assembly directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to complete this study of the future of The Joint Legislative Audit the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. and Review Commission HJR 210 specifically directed a review of: the appropriate role of the Bridge- Tunnel in the economic growth of the January 2003 Eastern Shore and the Commonwealth; the appropriate toll structure to ensure proper funding for the facility; the effi­ ciency and efficacy of the district’s poli­ cies, practices, and operations; and the appropriate State role in determining the future of the Bridge-Tunnel. Overall, this review found that the The Chesapeake Bay Bridge- Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel has Tunnel (CBBT) is a 17.6-mile long facil­ been a largely successful endeavor. It ity consisting of highways, bridges, and has fulfilled its original mission to pro- tunnels connecting the Eastern Shore of vide a convenient connection between Virginia with the Virginia mainland. The the Eastern Shore and the Virginia Bridge-Tunnel was opened to traffic in mainland that supports commerce in the 1964, replacing the ferry service that region. The facility appears to be gen­ had served the Eastern Shore for more erally well maintained and operated, al­ than 30 years. The facility was ex­ though this report recommends several panded in the late 1990s to include par­ improvements. The toll structure ap­ allel bridges, which were opened to traf­ pears sound, providing adequate reve­ fic in April 1999. Being the longest nue for operations, maintenance, and combination of bridges and tunnels in debt service. Looking to the future, the world, it stretches beyond the hori­ however, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge zon, and offers motorists a drive across and Tunnel Commission will need to ex­ open ocean (see figure below). It is amine long-term capital requirements for designated as U.S. Route 13, a primary the facility, and take the necessary ac­ arterial, and is part of Virginia’s National tions to ensure that the district is finan­ Highway System. The CBBT is operated cially prepared to meet those require- i The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel The Thimble Shoal Tunnel and The North Channel bridges, looking south toward fishing pier, looking north. the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel. Source: Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District. ments. To further the role of the com­ finance and construct a bridge-tunnel mission in meeting future challenges, for vehicular traffic from the Eastern the Virginia General Assembly will need Shore to the Virginia mainland. The fer­ to establish the commission as the per­ ries continued in operation until April 14, manent governing body for the district, 1964, when the Bridge-Tunnel opened and authorize the continued use of tolls to traffic. for operation and maintenance of the The Chesapeake Bay Bridge- facility. Tunnel was constructed in two phases, spanning more than 39 years. The Overview and History of the original facility, completed in the mid- Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel 1960s, consisted of two-lane trestle For more than 250 years, the bridges and tunnels. Parallel trestles Chesapeake Bay has posed an obstacle were completed in the late 1990s, mak­ to travel to and from Virginia’s Eastern ing the facility a four-lane divided high- Shore. Various packet ships and steam­ way except for the two miles of tunnel ers provided passenger and freight ser­ and two miles of tunnel approaches, vice from the early 1700s, but in 1933 which remain two lanes. the Virginia Ferry Corporation began the The Chesapeake Bay Bridge and first regular vehicular ferry service. By Tunnel Commission is the governing 1953, growing numbers of passengers body for the district. Its 11 members and vehicles transported by ferry include two members each from North­ prompted the General Assembly to cre­ ampton and Accomack counties; one ate the Chesapeake Bay Ferry District member each from the cities of Virginia to purchase and operate the ferry ser­ Beach, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesa­ vice. The Chesapeake Bay Ferry Com­ peake, Hampton, and Newport News; mission was established as the govern­ and one member from the Common- ing body for the district. Then, in re­ wealth Transportation Board. Members sponse to the growing demands on the are appointed by the Governor for four- ferry service, the 1956 General Assem­ year terms. Operation of the CBBT is bly authorized the ferry commission to the responsibility of 165 employees, in­ ii cluding toll collectors, police officers, Based on the JLARC staff review, maintenance workers, administrators, it appears that the CBBT is essential to and others. The staff organization is the economic well being of the Eastern headed by an executive director, who Shore, and plays an important role in reports to the CBBT commission. tourism in Virginia Beach. However, a In FY 2002, 3,294,480 vehicles JLARC staff analysis indicates that there used the Bridge-Tunnel. About 88.6 is little measurable impact of changes in percent of that traffic was cars and light Bridge-Tunnel traffic on the economies trucks. The remaining portion of traffic either of the Eastern Shore or of Hamp­ was from heavy trucks of various ton Roads. Further, government and lengths and axle combinations. The business leaders interviewed by JLARC largest single source of revenue for the staff for this review have concluded that district is from tolls on use of the facility.