User:KevCor360/Patriots Crossing

The Hampton Roads Third Crossing is a conceptual roadway system that would connect the Virginia Peninsula with South Hampton Roads across the Hampton Roads harbor in Southeast Virginia. The project is sometimes dubbed "Patriot's Crossing" because some plans for the project have it crossing the Elizabeth River by way of a new bridge-tunnel from Interstate 564 between Naval Station and Norfolk International Terminals.

There are currently at least three candidate plans for the project, ranging from expanding Interstate 64 to six lanes from I-664 to I-564 (and adding a new tube at the Hampton Roads Bridge–Tunnel), to building a new bridge-tunnel from I-564 across the Elizabeth River to VA-164 in Portsmouth, to a combination of both plans. Costs for the project are estimated to be between $3.3 billion to $12 billion dollars for full completion.

The project is still in the planning phase, currently awaiting the approval of the environmental impact assessment and the identification of a preferred plan by state leadership. There is no current timeline for construction, however project sheets released by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization show estimated completion to be in 2028.

Background
Vehicle traffic in the Hampton Roads region must use one of two bridge-tunnels to travel between the Peninsula to the Southside -- either the older Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) from Hampton to Norfolk or the newer Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel (MMMBT) from Newport News to Suffolk. The HRBT is also the oldest of the two tunnel facilities, with the original, westbound tunnel opening in 1957, and it's second tube opening in 1976, while both spans of the the MMMBT opened in 1992. As a side effect of this, and the change in construction standards between the 1950s and the 1970s, the HRBT's westbound tube has a vertical clearance of 13.5 ft, while it's eastbound tunnel (and both tunnels at the MMMBT) have a vertical clearance of 14.5 ft. Both are four lane roadways, with two tunnels each, providing two lanes of traffic in both directions. However, both facilities see significant afternoon traffic delays, with the HRBT seeing the bulk of the traffic delays with 20-25 minute travel times being the norm on the corridor between I-564 & I-664.

In addition, all interstate traffic destined for Naval Station Norfolk must use Interstate 564, a 3 mile stretch of interstate that connects mainline I-64 to the the base. This results in severe delays westbound during both the morning and eastbound during the afternoon rush, with traffic backing up the entire length of highway, and occasionally onto I-64 itself.

Almost 50 years later, an average of 88,000 vehicles a day were using the crossing, with volumes exceeding 100,000 during the tourist season. The vehicle capacity for the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel were designed for approximately 70,000 vehicles per day.

Project History
The closest the region came to expanding was in 2001, when VDOT instead opted to build a new four lane bridge from I-564 to I-664 and VA 164 in Portsmouth, an option which became known as Candidate Build (CB) 9. With the selection of CB 9 as the preferred alternatives, local and state officials still needed to pursue alternative plans to increase capacity at the HRBT, since the selected project would not add any lanes directly to the I-64 mainline. Some critics of that plan are concerned that the plan may provide little relief to the HRBT. However, as the HRBT has longer tunnel sections, adding additional capacity with new tube(s) would be more costly than many alternatives. Possible solutions suggested to relieve the HRBT include variable tolls to be highest during peak periods, to encourage motorists to select alternate routes or times of day. Enhanced mass transit services (such as restoring inter-city rail service to Petersburg and the Interstate 95 corridor) may also provide more affordable relief.

Background
Studies into the growing traffic at the HRBT have roots back to the early 1990s. In 1992, Virginia General Assembly had requested that VDOT study growing traffic at the HRBT. The conclusion of that study determined that a long-term large-scale solution to the problem would be required to alleviate backups. The following year, VDOT began the initial studies into that long-term solution, beginning the first Hampton Roads Crossing Study.

This study continued throughout the mid to late 1990's, with local and state leaders have hashing out details on preferred alignments and build alternatives for the project. Rhe criteria for any build-candidate to have been feasible, required that it must 1) reduce peak-hour volume at the HRBT by 10% or more; 2) provde a direct connection to the ports, and 3) connect to an existing expressway on both sides of the harbor, among other criteria. This helped to narrow the list from 45 potential project candidates to just eleven.

1999 - 2001: Hampton Roads Crossing Environmental Impact Statement
In October 1999, the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) and VDOT published the Draft Environmental Impact Study for the project. The study narrowed down the list of possible project build candidates from the 11 Candidate Builds down to three economically feasible and viable project plans. The three possible routings for the new crossing were identified as Candidate Builds (CB) 1, 2 and 9. Candidate Build 1 would be a widened I-64 from the I-664 interchange in Newport News to the I-564 interchange in Norfolk, with three new tunnels built - two of the new tunnels would carry eastbound traffic, the additional new tunnel would carry some form of multi-modal transportation (some form of HOV/HOT/ or bus rapid transit), while the existing two tunnels would carry all westbound traffic. Candidate Build 2 would include all of the above, while adding a component of Candidate Build 9 (below). This would essentially widen the current Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel while adding an extra bridge/tunnel across the Elizabeth River and connecting with the Western Freeway in Portsmouth. Candidate Build 9 would do the opposite of Candidate Build 1. Instead of widening and expanding the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, it would instead widen Interstate 664 from it's interchange with I-64 in Newport News, through the MMMBT to the Bowers Hill Interchange. This project would also include the new bridge-tunnel to I-564 in Norfolk as part of it's plan, also with a connection to the Western Freeway. The expansion at the MMMBT would follow the same parameters as Candidate Build 1: a new three lane tunnel where two new tunnels are used for southbound traffic, the remaining new tunnel for multi-modal use and the two existing tunnels would be used for northbound traffic.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board was briefed on the study, and on July 20, the board voted to approve Candidate Build 9 as the preferred build candidate. In addition to the build alternative meeting all of the stated criteria of the project, Candidate Build 9 also allowed the project to be build in phases. VDOT and the FHWA issued the Final EIS on December 11, 2000, and the FHWA issued the Record of Decision approving the project in June of 2001.

Critics of that plan are concerned that the plan may provide little relief to the HRBT. However, as the HRBT has longer tunnel sections, adding additional capacity with new tube(s) would be more costly than many alternatives. However, because no long-term funding could be identified for this project by the state or the HRTPO, the project never made it to a design or engineering phase.

2008: HRBT Expansion Feasability Study
In 2008, VDOT undertook a new study with the sole purpose of identifying expansion projects for the HRBT that would met the goals for congestion reduction while remaining environmentally and financially feasible alone The project identified six project alternatives ranging from adding two additional lanes of bridge-tunnel capacity to provide a contiguous, six-lane facility to adding four additional lanes of bridge-tunnel capacity for a total of eight-lanes, with two lanes designated as multi-modal lanes. Of the six projects, only three would have resulted in improving the roadway to an acceptable FHWA LOS,with costs for these three ranging from $3.14bm for the four lane bridge to $3.27 for billion for the four lane bridge tunnel. The results of this feasibility study made up the data for the 2012 EIS Study. (see below)

2010: Public-Private Partnership Attempts
In early 2010, Virginia Delegate Glenn Oder, a Republican representing the 94th district, which covers Newport News, sponsored House Bill 402 in the House of Delegates that required VDOT to accept and review unsolicited proposals for a potential public–private partnership (PPP) at the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. The bill was controversial in the sense that it required VDOT to not only accept and review the unsolicited proposals, but to recommend that "no more than two" of the projects be advanced to the CTB and ultimately to the Transportation Commissioner by March 2011. This bill also followed the emergence of several other regional projects such as the Elizabeth River Tunnels Project as well as the U.S. Route 460 expansion project were being negotiated under Virginia's PPTA law. However, then studies of the project did not contain a component relying on a PPP for construction. Nonetheless, the bill passed the House and Senate, and was signed into law by Governor Bob McDonnell on March 11, 2010. VDOT received two proposals: one from Hampton Roads Crossings LLC. a consortium of the multinational companies of Skanska (both the investment construction/civil engineering subsidiaries), Kiewit and Parsons Brinkerhoff, and another from Hampton Roads Mobility Group, made up of Grupo ACS, Dragados and Flatiron Construction, Skanska, the company providing majority of the investment for the consortium was at the time also in negotiations to participate as the financial backer for the Elizabeth River Tunnels project (a bid which they won and currently hold the concession rights to) and the engineering firm for the now defunct Route 460 "Commonwealth Connector" project.

HRC's proposed $3.5 - $4.5 billion proposal would have widened the HRBT to four lanes in each direction, as well as "improve" the MMMBT and the James River Bridge. In concession, the company would then assume operational control of the MMMBT and the JRB, and place tolls on all three crossings at a "worst case scenario" rate of $4 - $6. HRMG proposed to build a new HOT "express" lanes from the I-664 interchange to I-564 in Norfolk. In addition, they would build a new, four lane facility that would carry two lanes of traffic as general purpose lanes, with the other two new lanes carrying "express" traffic. The existing tunnels would also do the same—one existing tunnel would carry general purpose traffic, while the other tube would carry express traffic p3. While tolling would be variable in the express lanes based on congestion, the HRMG plan requires all lanes at the HRBT to be tolled at a rate of $1 - $2.

VDOT eventually recommended to the CTB to not advance either proposal to the next phase, with the P3 portion being cancelled outright in 2013 after the advancement of tax increases through the General Assembly which provided additional money to the Hampton Roads Region through the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund.

2012: Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Expansion Draft EIS
In December 2012, VDOT and the FHWA finalized the Draft EIS for the I-64/HRBT projects. The study specifically designed to improve traffic flow at the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, including infrastructure upgrades and widening on the I-64 mainline between from the I-664 interchange in Hampton to the I-564 in Norfolk. This study was commissioned to select build options candidates based on the outcome of the 2008 Expansion Feasibility Study. The EIS officially listed project candidates: the Build-8 Alternative, the Build-8 Managed Alternative and the Build-10 Alternative. The project never, however gained a Final EIS or Record of Decision from the FHWA, as the project never received funding for it to proceed.
 * The Build-8 Alternative would provide four continuous mainline lanes in each direction of I-64 from the I-664 interchange in Hampton to the I-564 interchange in Norfolk. including a new four lane eastbound tube.
 * The Build-8 Managed Alternative would do the same as the Build-8 Alternative, however, the some of the lanes would be managed using either high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) or high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes.
 * The Build-10 Alternative would provide five continuous mainline lanes in the same area as the previous two. This would require the widening of the Norfolk side of the with three additional lanes per direction. It would also build a new, 5 lane tunnel that would split the five lanes of traffic up as follows: four lanes of westbound traffic would use the existing tunnel, plus one lane of the new tunnel, and five lanes of eastbound traffic would be split into a 3/2 configuration. Estimates for the project brought the potential costs to between $4.4 to $6.7 billion.

2016 Supplemental Environmental Impact Study
With new funding opportunities in place with the creation of the Hampton Roads Fund in 2013, VDOT and the FHWA conducted a supplemental EIS to it's original EIS from 2001, that incorporated the information and data from the 2012 study and the 2001 Study into one final package. The study was published in August of 2016 with four "build candidates": After a 45-day public comment period, the study went before the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (the federally-mandated metropolitan planning organization) and the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (the commission in charge of the region's transportation set-aside) for local approval. Both organziation's unanimously approved Alternative A as the choice to replace the current Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel in the short term, with additional study on building a third crossing to be conducted as well. After the regional boards chose their preferred choices, the Commonwealth Transportation Board on December 7 approved Alternative A as the build candidate for the project, which should allow the FHWA's to issue a Record of Decision in the Summer of 2017.
 * Alternative A would create a consistent six-lane facility along I-64 from I-664 in Hampton to the I-564 interchange in Norfolk. A parallel bridge-tunnel would be constructed west of the existing I-64 HRBT; the tunnel width would match the expanded capacity on the approaches.
 * Alternative B would include all of the improvements included under Alternative A and also includes improvements along the existing I-564 corridor that extends from I-64 west across the Elizabeth River via a new bridge-tunnel. A new roadway would extend south from the new bridge-tunnel, along the east side of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA), and connect to existing VA 164. VA 164 would be widened to I-664.
 * Alternative C would include improvements along I-564, across the Elizabeth River, and south to VA 164 that are included in Alternative B. However, this alternative does not include improvements to I-64 or VA 164. Instead, this alternative would continue west from I-564 over water and tie into I-664. This alternative would widen I-664 from I-64 in Hampton to I-264 in Chesapeake. A parallel bridge-tunnel would be constructed west of the existing Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel (MMMBT); the tunnel width would match the expanded capacity on the approaches. Alternative C also converts the HOV lanes along I-564 in Norfolk to transit only. The I-564 Connector and the I-664 Connector would be constructed with one transit-only lane in each direction. These transit-only lanes continue in each direction north along I-664 to the terminus with I-64 in Hampton.
 * Alternative D would include improvements to I-64 between Hampton and Norfolk with a new parallel bridge-tunnel west of the existing HRBT. It also includes improvements along the existing I-564 corridor from I-64 west across the Elizabeth River via a new bridge-tunnel. A new roadway would extend south from the new bridge-tunnel, along the east side of CIDMMA, and connect to existing VA 164. VA 164 would be widened to I-664. I-664 would be widened from Hampton to Chesapeake with a new parallel bridge-tunnel west of the existing MMMBT.

The project is expected to cost an estimated $3.3 billion. No timetable for construction has been set, but plans from HRTPO expect for construction to be completed by 2024.