Regional Boards > Mid-Atlantic

Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel

<< < (26/26)

Alps:

--- Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2021, 06:35:48 PM ---
--- Quote from: Alps on July 18, 2021, 01:31:50 PM ---the existing tunnel is 2 lanes. they're not replacing it, they're adding a second one.

--- End quote ---

That is clearly correct for the tunnel that is being built now, Thimble Shoal,
the southern of the CBBT tunnels. Seagoing traffic headed for the Norfolk Naval
Station, the Ports of Virginia in Hampton Roads and the Port of Richmond (at the
head of navigation of the James River) all cross the CBBT by way of Thimble Shoal.

At one point early on, there was consideration given to building one new four
lane tube that would carry alll CBBT traffic and abandoning in place the existing
tunnel, but I am not sure that a four lane tube was even considered during the
EIS process that led to approval of the new bored Thimble Shoal Tunnel that is
now under construction (with some difficulty).

The north Chesapeake Tunnel is where seagoing traffic heads north toward the
Port of Baltimore.

--- End quote ---
I was not seeing anything with 4 lanes proposed for the north tunnel either.

cpzilliacus:

--- Quote from: Alps on July 19, 2021, 01:08:34 AM ---I was not seeing anything with 4 lanes proposed for the north tunnel either.

--- End quote ---

I believe you are correct.  The idea of a four lane tunnel to replace the two lane tunnel sounds good, but since the CBBTD mostly exists because of the tolls it collects, I suspect that they were properly reluctant to abandon a perfectly good tunnel (that might also anger the holders of CBBTD bonds).

froggie:
As I recall (since I was still in Norfolk at the time), a new 4-lane tunnel to replace the existing 2-lane tunnel was the primary consideration early on (talking 2013-2014 here).  At some point, it was changed to a parallel 2-lane tunnel with rehab of the existing tunnel due primarily to cost increases.

cpzilliacus:

--- Quote from: froggie on July 19, 2021, 10:14:58 AM ---As I recall (since I was still in Norfolk at the time), a new 4-lane tunnel to replace the existing 2-lane tunnel was the primary consideration early on (talking 2013-2014 here).  At some point, it was changed to a parallel 2-lane tunnel with rehab of the existing tunnel due primarily to cost increases.
--- End quote ---

I think that is correct.  And there's also the matter of tunnel boring machines.  Is there one massive enough to bore a four lane tunnel?  The biggest I can think of was Bertha, which did the SR-99 tunnel in Seattle, which is two lanes on two decks.  The overhead clearance is less than 16' 0" (4.8 meters) at 15' 2" (4.6 meters).   

As a comparison, the current CBBT tunnels are restricted to no higher than 13' 6" (4.1 meters).

D-Dey65:

--- Quote from: roadman65 on January 13, 2021, 01:21:52 PM ---I stopped there many of times and even  took photos of the signs and tunnels there.

--- End quote ---
Oh, I took them too a while back. I'm only sorry I didn't have a digital camera back then.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version