AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel  (Read 25732 times)

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14292
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:36:56 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
« Reply #125 on: July 19, 2021, 01:08:34 AM »

the existing tunnel is 2 lanes. they're not replacing it, they're adding a second one.

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

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10979
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 09:41:32 AM
Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
« Reply #126 on: July 19, 2021, 02:45:42 AM »

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

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).
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11811
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:59:38 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
« Reply #127 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.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10979
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 09:41:32 AM
Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
« Reply #128 on: July 21, 2021, 07:40:15 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.

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).
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.