AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-Atlantic => Topic started by: Mapmikey on November 21, 2016, 08:55:00 PM

Title: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Mapmikey on November 21, 2016, 08:55:00 PM
Virginia has lined up all the financing required to build the parallel tunnel at the Thimble shoal location...

Only about $47M of the $756M comes from the Tunnel District General Fund...the rest is bonds of one sort or another.

Construction to start fall 2017 and finish in fall 2022...

https://governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=18324

http://www.cbbt.com/ptst-project-timeline-2/
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Tom958 on November 21, 2016, 09:16:46 PM
"What's the point of building a second tunnel at Thimble Shoals when there'll still be only one under the main channel?" wondered Captain Obvious.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Mapmikey on November 21, 2016, 09:23:35 PM
Same principle that had them twin all the bridges but not the tunnels...?
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: hbelkins on November 22, 2016, 12:17:05 PM
"What's the point of building a second tunnel at Thimble Shoals when there'll still be only one under the main channel?" wondered Captain Obvious.

Funding issues? Build what you can when you can?

Maybe I haven't traveled that route at the right time, but I've never really seen that much of a bottleneck at the tunnels. I'm not sure how necessary the second tunnels are.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2016, 12:25:28 PM
"What's the point of building a second tunnel at Thimble Shoals when there'll still be only one under the main channel?" wondered Captain Obvious.

Funding issues? Build what you can when you can?

Maybe I haven't traveled that route at the right time, but I've never really seen that much of a bottleneck at the tunnels. I'm not sure how necessary the second tunnels are.

I think the safety issue is pretty substantial here.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Mapmikey on November 22, 2016, 12:32:43 PM
AADT on the CBBT north of the pier was 8800 for 2015...

For comparison, US 301's AADT at the Virginia end of the Nice Bridge is 26000, although that segment goes all the way back to VA 206 so not all of this is traffic merging onto the bridge (AADT at VA 3 is 14000, so the true number is somewhere in between).  I know there are backups sometimes on 301 at this merge.

I don't know what the lifespan of a tunnel like these is supposed to be but the original tunnels will be nearing 60 years old when this parallel tunnel is opened, so having a new tunnel in place is an ok idea even if traffic and safety weren't issues...

Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 22, 2016, 01:01:40 PM
I don't know what the lifespan of a tunnel like these is supposed to be but the original tunnels will be nearing 60 years old when this parallel tunnel is opened, so having a new tunnel in place is an ok idea even if traffic and safety weren't issues...

When the Fort McHenry Tunnel (I-95) in Baltimore opened to traffic in 1985, one of Baltimore Harbor Tunnel  (I-895) tubes was immediately closed for total reconstruction, followed by the other tube. Both tubes needed it badly as the traffic there was pretty heavy from the time it opened in 1957, and the state could never do a long-term closure.

There is a similar dynamic at the CBBT.  When the overwater trestled roadways were twinned, all traffic was moved to the new structures so significant work could be done on the "old" (now usually northbound) trestles (not sure how long that took, as I did not cross it during that work).

Once the new Thimble Shoal Tunnel is open, the existing Thimble Shoal tube can be shut-down for thorough rehabilitation and repair work.  Presumably at some point in the future, the CBBTD will twin the  Chesapeake Channel Tunnel (north tube) as well, so that existing tube can also receive the rehabilitation and repair work that it needs.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 22, 2016, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey link=topic=19225.msg2188277#msg2188277
For comparison, US 301's AADT at the Virginia end of the Nice Bridge is 26000, although that segment goes all the way back to VA 206 so not all of this is traffic merging onto the bridge (AADT at VA 3 is 14000, so the true number is somewhere in between).  I know there are backups sometimes on 301 at this merge.

According to the 2015 State Highway Administration's Highway Location Reference, AADT on the crossing  itself is 18,576.

Even though that part of 301 is toll (MDTA) maintenance, SHA still publishes the traffic volumes for it, as they do for all MDTA-maintained roads in the state.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on November 22, 2016, 07:03:22 PM
Part of it is safety-driven, which was the primary reason for the twinning of the bridge portions.  Another part of it is condition...the Thimble Shoals portals have had some cracking.  Lastly, parameters have changed from the previous plan for a parallel Thimble Shoals tunnel to a brand new 4-lane tunnel there because of a desire from the Navy for a deeper Thimble Shoals channel.  The current tunnel plan would support a deeper channel.

Regarding bottlenecks at the tunnels....they aren't significant, but in my (extensive) experience, there are two things that can happen that are technically considered bottlenecks:  A) platoons of traffic lining up behind someone driving slow through the tunnels.  I've personally been stuck behind timid drivers who will barely go 30 through the tunnel, and by the time we clear, there's a few dozen vehicles (including trucks) lined up behind the lead vehicle;  B)  incidents, whether a crash, maintenance inside the tunnel, or the need to stop traffic in both directions for an oversize/permit vehicle, can easily stop traffic for a half hour or more.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: epzik8 on November 23, 2016, 11:22:45 AM
So does this mean the tunnel portions will no longer be a two-way single bore? There will be two bores with one for each direction?
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2016, 12:15:38 PM
So does this mean the tunnel portions will no longer be a two-way single bore? There will be two bores with one for each direction?

Just one tunnel will have a dual tunnel (or, as mentioned above, a 4 lane tunnel).  The other will still be a single bore.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 23, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
So does this mean the tunnel portions will no longer be a two-way single bore? There will be two bores with one for each direction?

Just one tunnel will have a dual tunnel (or, as mentioned above, a 4 lane tunnel).  The other will still be a single bore.

That's not what the CBBTD Web site says (here (http://www.cbbt.com/project-description/)), though it had been discussed in the past as a possible total replacement for the existing 1960's tunnel; as well as making the tunnel four lanes wide instead of two lanes.

Quote
The Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project will construct a new two-lane tunnel under Thimble Shoal Channel.  When complete, the new tunnel will carry two lanes of traffic southbound and the existing tunnel will carry two lanes of traffic northbound.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2016, 01:42:31 PM
So does this mean the tunnel portions will no longer be a two-way single bore? There will be two bores with one for each direction?

Just one tunnel will have a dual tunnel (or, as mentioned above, a 4 lane tunnel).  The other will still be a single bore.

That's not what the CBBTD Web site says (here (http://www.cbbt.com/project-description/)), though it had been discussed in the past as a possible total replacement for the existing 1960's tunnel; as well as making the tunnel four lanes wide instead of two lanes.

Quote
The Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project will construct a new two-lane tunnel under Thimble Shoal Channel.  When complete, the new tunnel will carry two lanes of traffic southbound and the existing tunnel will carry two lanes of traffic northbound.

I was going based on what Froggie said a few posts above, which if correct simply means the website hasn't been updated yet.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on November 23, 2016, 08:04:38 PM
Website's correct...I was in error and was alluding to an earlier proposal for a new tunnel.  Guessing a 4-lane replacement was dropped due to cost.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Website's correct...I was in error and was alluding to an earlier proposal for a new tunnel.  Guessing a 4-lane replacement was dropped due to cost.

I think it might have been discussed in the JLARC audit and study of the CBBTD and CBBT which was done in the early 2000's and  is available online here (http://jlarc.virginia.gov/pdfs/reports/Rpt287.pdf) (.pdf, 3 MB).
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: hubcity on November 29, 2016, 05:08:43 PM
Regarding bottlenecks at the tunnels....they aren't significant, but in my (extensive) experience, there are two things that can happen that are technically considered bottlenecks:  A) platoons of traffic lining up behind someone driving slow through the tunnels.  I've personally been stuck behind timid drivers who will barely go 30 through the tunnel, and by the time we clear, there's a few dozen vehicles (including trucks) lined up behind the lead vehicle;  B)  incidents, whether a crash, maintenance inside the tunnel, or the need to stop traffic in both directions for an oversize/permit vehicle, can easily stop traffic for a half hour or more.

There's a summertime bottleneck corresponding to northern states' exodus to the Outer Banks, and vice versa, on Saturday mornings, too. (If you time it well, you can see the opposite direction's bottleneck while cruising past in the non-bottlenecked direction. If you don't time it well, you can experience the bottleneck first-hand.)
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: epzik8 on December 15, 2016, 04:50:33 PM
So I drove across the bridge-tunnel last week. It's a fun drive.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on December 18, 2016, 10:05:00 AM
I just hate to see the restaurant go. I was hoping they expanded the island enough to where there's enough room for a new one but I guess there's not enough funds for it (hard to imagine though given the amount of money being thrown around) but at least they're rebuilding the fishing pier afterwards.

"What's the point of building a second tunnel at Thimble Shoals when there'll still be only one under the main channel?" wondered Captain Obvious.
I'm pretty sure the Thimble Shoals channel IS the main one. While there are obviously plenty of ships going to Baltimore (and to a much less extent D.C.), I think you're underestimating the amount of marine traffic bound for Hampton Roads... one can stand on the beach at night and see ships lining up to cross over this tunnel. Plus a lot of Baltimore bound ships also use the C&D Canal instead
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2016, 07:35:19 PM
I just hate to see the restaurant go. I was hoping they expanded the island enough to where there's enough room for a new one but I guess there's not enough funds for it (hard to imagine though given the amount of money being thrown around) but at least they're rebuilding the fishing pier afterwards.

"What's the point of building a second tunnel at Thimble Shoals when there'll still be only one under the main channel?" wondered Captain Obvious.
I'm pretty sure the Thimble Shoals channel IS the main one. While there are obviously plenty of ships going to Baltimore (and to a much less extent D.C.), I think you're underestimating the amount of marine traffic bound for Hampton Roads... one can stand on the beach at night and see ships lining up to cross over this tunnel. Plus a lot of Baltimore bound ships also use the C&D Canal instead

I am not sure that ship access to Baltimore is possible for Panamax-dimensioned vessels via the C&D Canal.  It is possible coming up the Chesapeake Bay.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on December 18, 2016, 10:20:42 PM
I am not sure that ship access to Baltimore is possible for Panamax-dimensioned vessels via the C&D Canal.  It is possible coming up the Chesapeake Bay.

I don't think so either. The smaller vessels can still use the C&D though. The newer Post-Panamax ships won't be able to use either port (Baltimore or Hampton Roads) though because of the depth of the tunnels.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: ixnay on December 19, 2016, 08:36:13 PM
I am not sure that ship access to Baltimore is possible for Panamax-dimensioned vessels via the C&D Canal.  It is possible coming up the Chesapeake Bay.

I don't think so either. The smaller vessels can still use the C&D though. The newer Post-Panamax ships won't be able to use either port (Baltimore or Hampton Roads) though because of the depth of the tunnels.

IOW the drafts of the post-Panamax ships mean the keels or hulls would scrape the roofs of *all* the tunnels (CBBT, HRBT, *and* Interstates 895 and 95 in Baltimore)?

ixnay
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: DeaconG on December 19, 2016, 09:44:15 PM
I am not sure that ship access to Baltimore is possible for Panamax-dimensioned vessels via the C&D Canal.  It is possible coming up the Chesapeake Bay.

I don't think so either. The smaller vessels can still use the C&D though. The newer Post-Panamax ships won't be able to use either port (Baltimore or Hampton Roads) though because of the depth of the tunnels.

IOW the drafts of the post-Panamax ships mean the keels or hulls would scrape the roofs of *all* the tunnels (CBBT, HRBT, *and* Interstates 895 and 95 in Baltimore)?

ixnay

The drafts for New Panamax vessels are between 50 and 60 feet, so I don't think there will be an issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 20, 2016, 11:38:11 AM
IOW the drafts of the post-Panamax ships mean the keels or hulls would scrape the roofs of *all* the tunnels (CBBT, HRBT, *and* Interstates 895 and 95 in Baltimore)?

I cannot speak to the HRBT (by implication, these large vessels can pass the CBBT), but the I-95 (FMT) and I-895 (BHT) tunnels in Baltimore are upstream from the marine terminals where the large container ships (including  Panamax and post-Panamax) will tie up at the Seagirt and Dundalk docks, on the east side of Baltimore Harbor between I-695 (F.S. Key Bridge) and I-895 (BHT).

See map here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Seagirt+Marine+Terminal,+Port+of+Baltimore/@39.2447177,-76.5748787,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xd78879ea6c49ef72!8m2!3d39.2565487!4d-76.5466833).
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on December 20, 2016, 05:11:59 PM
What I read of the New Panamax ships is a draft around 50ft.  HRBT isn't an issue with that depth, but both CBBT tunnels and the channels into/out of Norfolk would be.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 20, 2016, 06:44:48 PM
What I read of the New Panamax ships is a draft around 50ft.  HRBT isn't an issue with that depth, but both CBBT tunnels and the channels into/out of Norfolk would be.

The Maryland Port Administration (MPA) seems to imply on their Maryland Manual Web page (http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/01glance/html/port.html) that they can handle Panamax and post-Panamax cargo ships.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on December 21, 2016, 07:26:12 AM
That's because MPA probably didn't look at the NOAA nautical charts and NTMs (Notice to Mariners) for the Hampton Roads area...
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 21, 2016, 06:28:25 PM
That's because MPA probably didn't look at the NOAA nautical charts and NTMs (Notice to Mariners) for the Hampton Roads area...
The HRBT and CBBT were designed during the Cold War. The reason we have tunnels rather than bridges is that the Navy didn't want bridges that some adversary might attack. My guess is that the tunnels were designed with the dimensions of warships in mind; no one could envision post-Panamax merchant ships at that time.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: davewiecking on December 21, 2016, 11:06:04 PM
The Maryland Port Administration (MPA) seems to imply on their Maryland Manual Web page (http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/01glance/html/port.html) that they can handle Panamax and post-Panamax cargo ships.

Quoting from the webpage you linked: "Indeed, Baltimore is one of only three Eastern U.S. ports with a 50-foot (15.2 meters) shipping channel and a 50-foot container berth, allowing it to accomodate some of the largest container ships in the world. On July 19, 2016 (about a month after the expansion of the Panama Canal opened), a cargo-carrier from Taiwan was the first supersized container ship to reach Baltimore through the Panama Canal."

Is there a difference between "supersized container ship" and "Panamax (or post-Panamax) ship"? Surely the Taiwanese ship wasn't airlifted over the CBBT on its way from the Carribean to Baltimore, nor do I think they pushed some of the more buoyant shipping containers overboard, which were then towed separately to Norfolk? I'm sure it did have to time the tides properly.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 21, 2016, 11:19:09 PM
From http://www.roadstothefuture.com/CBBT.html

Quote
Two major shipping channels are crossed by the Bridge-Tunnel. The 5,738-foot-long Thimble Shoal Channel Tunnel crossed the southerly channel (for Hampton Roads ship traffic), and provided a 1,900-foot-wide ship channel with a 50-foot minimum depth, and a 2,500-foot-wide channel with a 40-foot minimum depth. The 5,450-foot-long Chesapeake Channel Tunnel crossed the northerly channel (for Baltimore ship traffic), and provided a 1,700-foot-wide channel with 50-foot depth, and a 2,300-foot-wide channel with a minimum 40-foot depth.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on December 22, 2016, 07:06:27 PM
From http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/panamax/ (http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/panamax/): draught is 49.9 feet. So 50 feet is scraping it closely. Makes me wonder if the ship was designed specifically with 50 feet in mind, maybe under the influence of the Navy.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: ixnay on December 22, 2016, 09:02:04 PM
From http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/panamax/ (http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/panamax/): draught is 49.9 feet. So 50 feet is scraping it closely. Makes me wonder if the ship was designed specifically with 50 feet in mind, maybe under the influence of ACOE.

The Army Corps of Engineers?

ixnay
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2016, 10:13:49 PM
From http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/panamax/ (http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/panamax/): draught is 49.9 feet. So 50 feet is scraping it closely. Makes me wonder if the ship was designed specifically with 50 feet in mind, maybe under the influence of ACOE.

Maybe they were assuming that all of the ice in the Arctic and Antarctica would melt and make those tunnels "deeper?" 

And there are also high and low tide conditions.

Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on December 22, 2016, 10:45:54 PM
Quote
And there are also high and low tide conditions.

There are, but this is why NOAA, the Navy, and the Coast Guard use water depths and clearances based on mean low tide.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on December 24, 2016, 12:31:06 AM
From http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/panamax/ (http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/panamax/): draught is 49.9 feet. So 50 feet is scraping it closely. Makes me wonder if the ship was designed specifically with 50 feet in mind, maybe under the influence of ACOE.

The Army Corps of Engineers?

ixnay
Fixed.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 10, 2017, 07:03:32 AM
I am unsure if this has happened before, but it is very sad that it has.  High winds seem to be the main factor in this one.

Via NBC12 (Richmond)'s website:Tractor-trailer blown off Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel killing driver (http://www.nbc12.com/story/34468253/tractor-trailer-blown-off-chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-killing-driver)

Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on February 10, 2017, 07:33:12 AM
It's happened before on occasion, but it's very uncommon, and it's usually the result of some sort of crash or driver inattention.  Still, this is one reason why the CBBT has vehicle restrictions during high wind events.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 10, 2017, 04:35:42 PM
It's happened before on occasion, but it's very uncommon, and it's usually the result of some sort of crash or driver inattention.  Still, this is one reason why the CBBT has vehicle restrictions during high wind events.

The CBBT used to market itself with the phrase "Go to Sea in Your Car," which was (and is) accurate - even in a windstorm with near-gale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gale_warning) conditions (apparently the conditions before the crash were even worse, and the windspeeds may have been above well above what is considered gale-force winds).
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 10, 2017, 04:40:15 PM
Richmond.com (actually a Washington Post byline): Wind not seen as factor in fatal Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel truck crash, authorities say (http://www.richmond.com/news/national-world/ap/article_adeb3d1c-4c30-5c8a-8704-c87a61a082bb.html)

Quote
A truck driver who died Thursday after his tractor-trailer plunged off the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel on Virginia's Eastern Shore has been identified as a North Carolina man.

Quote
Joseph Chen, 47, of Greenville, was pulled from the water after the crash by a U.S. Navy helicopter and was "unresponsive" at that time, according to Edward Spencer, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel police chief. Chen was taken to a hospital, where he died, officials said.

Quote
The truck went off the southbound side of the bridge before 12:30 p.m. at mile marker 15, officials said. Winds at the time were gusting in excess of 40 mph, but officials said they do not think that wind was a factor in the crash.

Quote
"At this point I don't believe this is a wind issue," Spencer said, citing "evidence at the scene."
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 11, 2017, 03:02:56 AM
The Virginian-Pilot: "17 miles of scary": CBBT is notorious among truckers, but police say wind isn't to blame in this fatal crash (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/miles-of-scary-cbbt-is-notorious-among-truckers-but-police/article_01ef06a7-6465-51da-8aa6-770e90535aee.html)

Quote
Police say driver error was the cause of an accident that sent a semi over the side of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel on Thursday. The truck’s driver, Joseph Chen, was plucked from the water by a Navy helicopter but died on the way to the hospital.

Quote
Wind had been widely speculated to be the cause of the accident. A storm that moved into the area Thursday morning brought powerful gusts out of the northeast. Chief Edward Spencer, head of the CBBT’s police force, said wind can’t be ruled out as a factor, but after interviewing witnesses and reconstructing the accident – the bridge has no video cameras along its spans – the preliminary investigation concluded that Chen went off the bridge while trying to pass another semi.

Quote
According to police, he was traveling in the right lane of the southbound span, around the 15-mile marker, which is closer to the Eastern Shore side. A car was in the left lane. Another truck was ahead of Chen, in his lane.

Quote
“He went to pass the tractor-trailer,” Spencer said. “He cut over in front of passenger car, and once he got over in the left lane, he ran up on curb and through the guard rail.”
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: hbelkins on February 11, 2017, 11:58:20 AM
^^^

There are things called brakes. The now-deceased driver could have used them to slow himself down until the passenger car he cut in front of had overtaken him, then he could have pulled out to pass the slower truck that was in his lane.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: DeaconG on February 11, 2017, 08:36:51 PM
^^^

There are things called brakes. The now-deceased driver could have used them to slow himself down until the passenger car he cut in front of had overtaken him, then he could have pulled out to pass the slower truck that was in his lane.

Wait, you require him to use common sense? How can he get a Darwin Award like that?
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on February 12, 2017, 04:54:47 AM
show some respect guys...
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2017, 07:15:04 PM
^^^

There are things called brakes. The now-deceased driver could have used them to slow himself down until the passenger car he cut in front of had overtaken him, then he could have pulled out to pass the slower truck that was in his lane.

Well-stated and I agree.

There's also this - IIRC, the posted limit across the CBBT is either 55 MPH or maybe 50 MPH in a spot or two (not sure about 50), except at the toll plazas (where all traffic, even with E-ZPass, must come to a complete stop).  It's a little over 19 miles one-way from either of the  entering toll plazas to the one on the other side of the crossing.   That is about 20 to 21 minutes to make it across at 55, if there's no congestion or other problems.

At 50 MPH, the crossing takes just under 23 minutes.

There are no signalized intersections or STOP signs, so we do not need to work about intersection delays.

IMO, this is relatively  short crossing to make, in spite of its unusual length.  Why not slow down a little?  Especially drivers of commercial vehicles? 

I also wonder if the CBBTD has considered NJTA-style variable speed limits?  Given that the crossing is not that long and is presumably "wired" to support them already, it might be a winner.

Some drivers are apparently not willing to let off on the gas, and end with a Virginia reckless driving ticket from the CBBTD's police force (details from WAVY-TV Channel 10 in a 2016 report here (http://wavy.com/2016/11/17/special-report-is-the-cbbt-becoming-a-safe-haven-for-speeders/), including a video).
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on February 12, 2017, 08:41:05 PM
show some respect guys...
I respect natural selection.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: ixnay on April 21, 2017, 06:21:46 AM
Has anybody on this board crossed the CBBT *just* to stop at the gift shop/fishing pier?  I ask this because I am considering a vacation this summer involving that (and a couple of VA ES destinations), since the gift shop is closing this fall.

I imagine few people use the PA Tpk. or NJTP *just* to stop at a specific service plaza...

ixnay
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on April 21, 2017, 06:49:27 AM
Has anybody on this board crossed the CBBT *just* to stop at the gift shop/fishing pier?  I ask this because I am considering a vacation this summer involving that (and a couple of VA ES destinations), since the gift shop is closing this fall.

I imagine few people use the PA Tpk. or NJTP *just* to stop at a specific service plaza...

ixnay
Many people use the NJTP to stop at the Lombardi Plaza, because that's free to visit. Though some people actually do pay a toll to visit one of the other ones.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on April 21, 2017, 09:18:37 AM
Quote
Has anybody on this board crossed the CBBT *just* to stop at the gift shop/fishing pier?

Many years ago, I did once.  Also happened to be stationed in Norfolk at the time.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 21, 2017, 09:26:08 AM
Has anybody on this board crossed the CBBT *just* to stop at the gift shop/fishing pier?  I ask this because I am considering a vacation this summer involving that (and a couple of VA ES destinations), since the gift shop is closing this fall.

I imagine few people use the PA Tpk. or NJTP *just* to stop at a specific service plaza...

If you want  to visit, this is the summer season to do so.  Because of the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel project, the gift shop and restaurant will be no more after September 2017.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on April 21, 2017, 10:21:48 AM
I sometimes go just to fish but that's hit or miss. Some days it's crowded which makes it hard to cast into the channel smdh toll gone to waste
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2017, 01:52:35 PM
Just a reminder...

Baltimore Sun: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel restaurant, gift shop and pier set to close (http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/dp-fea-chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-restaurant-20170824-story.html)

Quote
Donna Brady stood behind the checkout counter at Virginia Originals and Chesapeake Grill, moving along the line quickly while answering questions about the future of the restaurant and gift shop. It’s been a regular occurrence for the hostess.

Quote
The Chesapeake Grill, a full-service restaurant, and Virginia Originals gift shop, which opened in 2010, is set to close for good Sept. 30.

Quote
With every question about the closing, Brady said she feels an indescribable sadness. At first, she said, the questions were hard to answer, but now they are so frequent, she knows her spiel thoroughly without even having to think.

Quote
“(Customers) think we’re coming back and we’re not. A lot of people don’t understand the reasoning why,” Brady said.

Quote
Brady has been watching the sunset at the bridge-tunnel travel stop for almost seven years. She joined the team when Chris and Kellson Savvides, two Virginia Beach restaurateurs, leased the space in 2010. The 14-year lease was voided after the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel Commission, which includes members from Newport News and Hampton, decided last year to expand the bridge-tunnel.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 10:25:15 PM
Just a reminder...
Baltimore Sun: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel restaurant, gift shop and pier set to close (http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/dp-fea-chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-restaurant-20170824-story.html)

I wonder if there is any feasible and affordable engineering solution to build a new restaurant and ample parking somewhere on that island?
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: hbelkins on September 07, 2017, 11:34:18 AM
I'm in hopes that CBBT swag will be available somewhere, either online or in a physical shop located elsewhere. Last time I was on the CBBT, I bought a sticker but haven't put it on my vehicle yet. I'd like to be able to maybe get another sometime.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 07, 2017, 02:07:41 PM
I picked up a t-shirt when I stopped by coming back from a work trip to Accomack County. That gift shop is a really nice place, I'm sad to see it go.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2017, 02:13:17 PM
Just a reminder...
Baltimore Sun: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel restaurant, gift shop and pier set to close (http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/dp-fea-chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-restaurant-20170824-story.html)

I wonder if there is any feasible and affordable engineering solution to build a new restaurant and ample parking somewhere on that island?

It took a lot of design and engineering just to fit the 2nd tunnel on the island.  If they tried to refit the restaurant on there it'll probably be the world's most costly restaurant design!!
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 02:51:39 PM
I wonder if there is any feasible and affordable engineering solution to build a new restaurant and ample parking somewhere on that island?
It took a lot of design and engineering just to fit the 2nd tunnel on the island.  If they tried to refit the restaurant on there it'll probably be the world's most costly restaurant design!!

I agree.  Initially they were going to expand both islands to accommodate the about 250 foot spacing between the two bridges.  That would be needed for the immersed tube construction method  which would require that much separation in order to dredge the trench for the new tube without impacting the existing tube.

By using the shield-bored tunnel method (first time in the H.R. area) they can get much closer to the existing tube and thereby place its portals on the existing islands.  Plus save about $200 million.

Building those 4 islands on what is essentially open sea was considered one of the most remarkable portions of the project, also very expensive.  The same challenges would occur on expanding an island, massive amounts of suitable soil fill material needs to be obtained from somewhere, barged out there, and then placed layer by layer and properly compacted, and massive amounts of armor stone needs to be barged out there and placed around the island.

They must have built the islands very well, as I have never heard of them being damaged in any storm, other than perhaps some cosmetic damage, and they have been there for 53 years.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on September 08, 2017, 12:26:06 AM
https://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-pier-and-restaurant-closing-oct/article_59064e92-73cd-5c16-93e6-1f82453c373f.html

Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel pier and restaurant closing Oct. 1
By Jordan Pascale
The Virginian-Pilot
Sep 7, 2017

Quote
In less than a month, crews will dig a big hole in an island in the Chesapeake Bay.  A groundbreaking is set for 11:30 a.m. on Sept. 18.

Months later, a giant boring machine will be lowered into that hole to dig another mile-long tunnel to complement the one under the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel's Thimble Shoal channel.

It will be the first tunnel in the region to be built using the boring method.  The machine’s 41-foot rotating head cuts into the soil, carves it out and hauls it away on a conveyor belt before it’s transferred to trucks.

Precast concrete-tunnel segments are loaded into the machine and pushed into place. Once one ring of concrete is finished, the machine pushes forward, excavates more soil and adds another ring.

When it reaches the other side, the machine will be disassembled and removed. Then crews install the roadway, lighting and mechanical systems.

The 8,800 drivers that use the bridge-tunnel complex daily likely won't be inconvenienced. Most of the work will be outside the current right of way. The tunnel stretches from Virginia Beach to the Eastern Shore.

Perhaps the most obvious changes tourists, fishermen  and drivers would  notice is the closure of the island nearest Virginia Beach. The island is home to a fishing pier, restaurant and gift shop. The pier will return in 2022, but the restaurant and gift shop won't due to space constraints on the island. Expanding it would've cost more than $200 million.

At $756 million, the project is among the largest in the region since the $2.1 billion project that built a new Midtown Tunnel, refurbished the old Midtown and Downtown tunnels and built the  Martin Luther King Jr. Expressway [Extension] in Portsmouth.

While the route is not the most-heavily traveled in the region – some residents question why this tunnel is being built ahead of more pressing needs – the bay bridge-tunnel  is in a unique situation.

The  Tunnel District is a political subdivision of the state and operates as a business entity. The district doesn’t use federal, state or local taxes to operate or maintain the bridge, but it is tax-exempt.

Because it runs as a business, the commission aims to reduce risk factors. A catastrophic event in either tunnel could render the route useless. Adding a second tunnel would  increase safety by making traffic flow one way in each.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 21, 2019, 02:11:17 AM
I found a video of the bridge from 1987:

And because it's from 1987, it's clearly in VHS quality. Which is too bad, because I still want to see evidence of those speed limit traffic signals the bridge used to have on it in the early-1980's.

Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: MCRoads on April 16, 2019, 04:30:24 PM
Those stubs on the crossovers aren’t going away, are they? ERR, that makes me mad.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: roadman65 on April 16, 2019, 09:57:08 PM
I am guessing that the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel is not part of the project as I cannot find anything to support it. 

However, I like the boring method over the covered trench method better. 

Also I seen on CBBT website there is a gift shop at the Eastern Shore Plaza where souveneirs can still be bought for travelers due to the loss of the gift shop.  Also the fishing pier will be rebuilt once the second tube opens.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on April 16, 2019, 11:27:57 PM
I am guessing that the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel is not part of the project as I cannot find anything to support it. 

The Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project does not include the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel expansion.  That will be somewhere in the future and the CCBTD has not announced any schedule for that project or even whether it will necessarily be a tunnel.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on April 18, 2019, 09:10:16 PM
I am guessing that the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel is not part of the project as I cannot find anything to support it. 

The Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project does not include the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel expansion.  That will be somewhere in the future and the CCBTD has not announced any schedule for that project or even whether it will necessarily be a tunnel.
Nothing recent regarding that expansion, though a presentation given to HRTPO back in 2014 indicated that project "Parallel Crossing Phase II-B (Parallel Chesapeake Channel Tunnel)" would occur in 2030 or 2040.

Parallel Crossing Phase I was completed in July 1999 and involved constructing the parallel bridge structures. The current Thimble Shoal Tunnel project is Parallel Crossing Phase II-A, and the later Chesapeake Channel Tunnel project would be Parallel Crossing Phase II-B.
http://www.cbbt.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/HRTPO-Project-Overviewrevised614.pdf
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on April 18, 2019, 09:21:56 PM
^^^
More updated information, a brochure advertising the Chesapeake Bay-Bridge Tunnel released in December 2018 notes on Page 2 under "Historical Timeline" that "Tunneling Forward with Phase III, Parallel Chesapeake Channel Tunnel" will occur in 2035 - 2045.

http://www.cbbt.com/Print/mobile/index.html#p=3
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on April 18, 2019, 10:00:24 PM
So they are planning Chesapeake Channel as a tunnel and not a bridge which I thought might be in the alternatives analysis.  No longer a major Navy channel.

Hopefully they will find the needed funding long before 2035. 

But very welcome that they are now building Thimble Shoals.  Any word on whether this project includes a full rebab of the existing tunnel?
 
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 12:29:57 AM
So they are planning Chesapeake Channel as a tunnel and not a bridge which I thought might be in the alternatives analysis.  No longer a major Navy channel.

Hopefully they will find the needed funding long before 2035. 

But very welcome that they are now building Thimble Shoals.  Any word on whether this project includes a full rebab of the existing tunnel?
From everything I've seen, no word on rehabilitation of the current tunnel. It seems all the focus is on simply getting the new tunnel built.

I did notice an interesting design feature of the new tunnel. It wouldn't expand the existing islands, but rather shrink to a narrow footprint to retain the existing, then widen back out, then shrink again at the other island, then expand back out to the current bridges. This was done supposedly to reduce environmental impact from having to expand the island. It retains the current pier, which is to be renovated, but demolished the restaurant.

Here were some other proposals in the past which would have widened the island, and retained or constructed a new welcome center / restaurant. Notice the newer they are, the smaller footprint they have.

2015 proposal -
(https://i.ibb.co/hZ7bz8w/CBBT2015-Proposal.png)

2016 proposal -
(https://i.ibb.co/10b05xV/CBBT2016-Proposal.png)

Current design -
(https://i.ibb.co/d4d79FC/CBBTFinal.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/1nz3xV7/Chesapeake-Bay-Bridge-Tunnel-Concept.png)

Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 12:57:57 AM
I did notice an interesting design feature of the new tunnel. It wouldn't expand the existing islands, but rather shrink to a narrow footprint to retain the existing, then widen back out, then shrink again at the other island, then expand back out to the current bridges. This was done supposedly to reduce environmental impact from having to expand the island.

Mainly to save over $200 million in construction costs to expand the manmade islands.  Very expensive construction.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 01:08:00 AM
I did notice an interesting design feature of the new tunnel. It wouldn't expand the existing islands, but rather shrink to a narrow footprint to retain the existing, then widen back out, then shrink again at the other island, then expand back out to the current bridges. This was done supposedly to reduce environmental impact from having to expand the island.

Mainly to save over $200 million in construction costs to expand the manmade islands.  Very expensive construction.
Ah, that makes sense. Was there any previous cost estimates on having an island expansion?
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2019, 05:56:30 AM
I did notice an interesting design feature of the new tunnel. It wouldn't expand the existing islands, but rather shrink to a narrow footprint to retain the existing, then widen back out, then shrink again at the other island, then expand back out to the current bridges. This was done supposedly to reduce environmental impact from having to expand the island.

Mainly to save over $200 million in construction costs to expand the manmade islands.  Very expensive construction.
Ah, that makes sense. Was there any previous cost estimates on having an island expansion?

Well, yeah. That's how they know they'll save $200 million.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 06:26:31 AM
Mainly to save over $200 million in construction costs to expand the manmade islands.  Very expensive construction.
Ah, that makes sense. Was there any previous cost estimates on having an island expansion?
Well, yeah. That's how they know they'll save $200 million.

Yeah, the 2015 proposal he showed above would have connected to the ends of the parallel trestles on a seemless straight alignment and would have required widening the manmade islands about 200 feet to the west.

That was the future plan when they built the parallel trestles in the late 1990s.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: roadman65 on April 23, 2019, 10:29:24 PM
They saved on construction costs as well as having to dredge and dump sand to make the islands bigger. 

Too bad they cannot do that to the HRBT when they add the two new tunnels.  From what I gather is that four new islands will be made to make the approaches.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on April 23, 2019, 10:40:36 PM
They saved on construction costs as well as having to dredge and dump sand to make the islands bigger. 
Too bad they cannot do that to the HRBT when they add the two new tunnels.  From what I gather is that four new islands will be made to make the approaches.

Much shallower water and much less hydrostatic forces, 4 to 6 feet deep around the HRBT islands.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: ixnay on April 24, 2019, 12:14:55 PM
How much public input was there regarding what to do with the gift shop/restaurant (which I stopped at a couple of times)?  Was it a big money loser?  How was its sacrifice sold to the public?

ixnay
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2019, 12:37:50 PM
How much public input was there regarding what to do with the gift shop/restaurant (which I stopped at a couple of times)?  Was it a big money loser?  How was its sacrifice sold to the public?

ixnay

There was probably a public meeting describing the new tunnel, and it probably would've been shown that the restaurant/gift shop was going to be eliminated.

Being that the fishing pier was going to be maintained/rebuilt, I'm going to say this was a much larger concern for the general public in the area rather than a gift shop or restaurant they rarely use. 
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Rothman on April 24, 2019, 01:26:54 PM
I wonder how much public input the CBBT needs to consider.  Their administrators were quite proud of their nearly complete autonomy when I met with them over 10 years ago.

(personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on April 24, 2019, 01:27:33 PM
The gift shop/restaurant was a nice-to-have, but there was no way to justify spending the extra $250 million (the number that floated around the Hampton Roads media at the time...I was still in Norfolk then) to expand the island for a replacement gift shop.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
The gift shop/restaurant was a nice-to-have, but there was no way to justify spending the extra $250 million (the number that floated around the Hampton Roads media at the time...I was still in Norfolk then) to expand the island for a replacement gift shop.

The bored tunnel gave the ability to build within 50 feet or less of the existing tunnel and staying within the existing island area. 

The wide separation on the HRBT with the tunnels 200 feet apart was needed to construct a trench for a parallel immersed tube with 2:1 slopes so that the tube can be placed and then backfilled over.  That necessitated expanding the islands.

The wide trestle separation of 200 feet on the CBBT was predicated on the same type of immersed tunnel project for the second tube.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: RoadPelican on April 25, 2019, 02:17:24 PM
I remember getting a coupon for a free Pepsi at the tollbooth to use at the Pier Restaurant back in the 90's and Early 2000's, I think they stopped doing that 10-15 years ago.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 02:37:19 AM
So they are planning Chesapeake Channel as a tunnel and not a bridge which I thought might be in the alternatives analysis.  No longer a major Navy channel.

Hopefully they will find the needed funding long before 2035. 

But very welcome that they are now building Thimble Shoals.  Any word on whether this project includes a full rebab of the existing tunnel?
From everything I've seen, no word on rehabilitation of the current tunnel. It seems all the focus is on simply getting the new tunnel built.

I did notice an interesting design feature of the new tunnel. It wouldn't expand the existing islands, but rather shrink to a narrow footprint to retain the existing, then widen back out, then shrink again at the other island, then expand back out to the current bridges. This was done supposedly to reduce environmental impact from having to expand the island. It retains the current pier, which is to be renovated, but demolished the restaurant.

Here were some other proposals in the past which would have widened the island, and retained or constructed a new welcome center / restaurant. Notice the newer they are, the smaller footprint they have.

2015 proposal -
(https://i.ibb.co/hZ7bz8w/CBBT2015-Proposal.png)

2016 proposal -
(https://i.ibb.co/10b05xV/CBBT2016-Proposal.png)

Current design -
(https://i.ibb.co/d4d79FC/CBBTFinal.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/1nz3xV7/Chesapeake-Bay-Bridge-Tunnel-Concept.png)

Would that work for an I-97 or I-99? Because I was kinda hoping that it would get a second tunnel. Which is needed. I never go that way because I'm afraid to do so. I hate driving on long bridges.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on July 25, 2019, 06:25:02 AM
^ Nobody is seriously considering an Interstate on the Eastern Shore, so your question is a bit moot.

There are long term plans for a second tunnel at the Chesapeake Channel, but that is not part of this project.  This project, if you read upthread, is just for a second tunnel at the Thimble Shoals Channel.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 04:56:31 PM
^ Nobody is seriously considering an Interstate on the Eastern Shore, so your question is a bit moot.

There are long term plans for a second tunnel at the Chesapeake Channel, but that is not part of this project.  This project, if you read upthread, is just for a second tunnel at the Thimble Shoals Channel.

Ah I see now. A second tunnel would become handy. Even though, i've hardly been on that highway before. I personally think it's scary to drive on, and a second tunnel would be ideal to eliminate two way traffic.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2019, 12:26:49 AM
^ Nobody is seriously considering an Interstate on the Eastern Shore, so your question is a bit moot.

There are long term plans for a second tunnel at the Chesapeake Channel, but that is not part of this project.  This project, if you read upthread, is just for a second tunnel at the Thimble Shoals Channel.

What? I thought it was clear that the two I-87s will be connected...
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 12:34:34 AM
^ Nobody is seriously considering an Interstate on the Eastern Shore, so your question is a bit moot.

There are long term plans for a second tunnel at the Chesapeake Channel, but that is not part of this project.  This project, if you read upthread, is just for a second tunnel at the Thimble Shoals Channel.

What? I thought it was clear that the two I-87s will be connected...
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not, but they’re not planned to be.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2019, 12:46:57 AM
^ Nobody is seriously considering an Interstate on the Eastern Shore, so your question is a bit moot.

There are long term plans for a second tunnel at the Chesapeake Channel, but that is not part of this project.  This project, if you read upthread, is just for a second tunnel at the Thimble Shoals Channel.

What? I thought it was clear that the two I-87s will be connected...
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not, but they’re not planned to be.
I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic anymore. I just assume it's the base condition. But with I-87 going to Norfolk, it's a short connection to the CBBT, and then the other I-87 has an easy trip along I-278 and I-95 to NJ Turnpike, Del Mem Br, I-95, DE 1... and look how close they are!
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on July 26, 2019, 12:49:15 AM
^ Nobody is seriously considering an Interstate on the Eastern Shore, so your question is a bit moot.

There are long term plans for a second tunnel at the Chesapeake Channel, but that is not part of this project.  This project, if you read upthread, is just for a second tunnel at the Thimble Shoals Channel.

What? I thought it was clear that the two I-87s will be connected...
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not, but they’re not planned to be.
I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic anymore. I just assume it's the base condition. But with I-87 going to Norfolk, it's a short connection to the CBBT, and then the other I-87 has an easy trip along I-278 and I-95 to NJ Turnpike, Del Mem Br, I-95, DE 1... and look how close they are!

If you hate driving on highways, then that's the route to go! Take US 17 and US 13!
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on July 26, 2019, 06:44:31 PM
^ Nobody is seriously considering an Interstate on the Eastern Shore, so your question is a bit moot.

There are long term plans for a second tunnel at the Chesapeake Channel, but that is not part of this project.  This project, if you read upthread, is just for a second tunnel at the Thimble Shoals Channel.

What? I thought it was clear that the two I-87s will be connected...
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not, but they’re not planned to be.
I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic anymore. I just assume it's the base condition. But with I-87 going to Norfolk, it's a short connection to the CBBT, and then the other I-87 has an easy trip along I-278 and I-95 to NJ Turnpike, Del Mem Br, I-95, DE 1... and look how close they are!

The problem in this case would be VA. The routing will have to zigzag almost the entire length of Virginia's Eastern Shore, then once past the CBBT it would have to be really fancy to I-64.

Sarcasm would be your best bet here.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 07:16:43 PM
The problem in this case would be VA. The routing will have to zigzag almost the entire length of Virginia's Eastern Shore, then once past the CBBT it would have to be really fancy to I-64.

Sarcasm would be your best bet here.
US-13 in Virginia Beach would be relatively easy to upgrade, it's all limited-access, a few intersections, and two interchanges - until you reach Diamond Springs Rd. Good luck from there.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 09:02:37 PM
Tight half diamond interchange at Diamond Springs Road leading to the existing road underneath an elevated viaduct.  Flyovers for the through traffic from the viaduct onto an overlap with I-64, utilize a modified form of the existing interchange for the rest.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 09:17:04 PM
Tight half diamond interchange at Diamond Springs Road leading to the existing road underneath an elevated viaduct.  Flyovers for the through traffic from the viaduct onto an overlap with I-64, utilize a modified form of the existing interchange for the rest.
Like I said, good luck!

There would likely also be a spike in traffic on I-64 due to the I-87 thru route, so you have to factor in how to deal with that added traffic. An expansion is needed at the I-64 / I-464 / US-17 (or would be I-87 South) / VA-168 interchange, though an expansion would be needed anyways with the current I-87 proposal, if it is to be the interstate highway from Hampton Roads to the south.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2019, 10:59:43 PM
^ Nobody is seriously considering an Interstate on the Eastern Shore, so your question is a bit moot.

There are long term plans for a second tunnel at the Chesapeake Channel, but that is not part of this project.  This project, if you read upthread, is just for a second tunnel at the Thimble Shoals Channel.

What? I thought it was clear that the two I-87s will be connected...
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not, but they’re not planned to be.
I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic anymore. I just assume it's the base condition. But with I-87 going to Norfolk, it's a short connection to the CBBT, and then the other I-87 has an easy trip along I-278 and I-95 to NJ Turnpike, Del Mem Br, I-95, DE 1... and look how close they are!

The problem in this case would be VA. The routing will have to zigzag almost the entire length of Virginia's Eastern Shore, then once past the CBBT it would have to be really fancy to I-64.

Sarcasm would be your best bet here.
Indeed, the eastern shore is the hard part. I've come up with a relatively unobtrusive route but it does zag a lot and would have to take a few properties. It would take a lot more traffic wanting to use the shore route and clogging up existing 13 before this enters the realm of possibility.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 11:05:35 PM
I've come up with a relatively unobtrusive route
What's the route?
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on July 27, 2019, 12:09:54 AM
I've come up with a relatively unobtrusive route
What's the route?
I drew it up. Come on over and I'll show it to you. But you could do it yourself - take an aerial and try to avoid anything that looks like a building.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: J3ebrules on July 27, 2019, 12:18:45 AM
Interesting to read this today after literally just arriving in VA beach after doing the NJ Delaware Memorial Bridge to DE 1 to US 113 to US 13 to the CBBT and wanting to scream the entire way through Delaware. Can someone explain why they won't run an interstate down the length of Delaware through all that nothing???
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on July 27, 2019, 12:28:33 AM
Interesting to read this today after literally just arriving in VA beach after doing the NJ Delaware Memorial Bridge to DE 1 to US 113 to US 13 to the CBBT and wanting to scream the entire way through Delaware. Can someone explain why they won't run an interstate down the length of Delaware through all that nothing???

The existing routing of US 13 takes up the straightest alignment as far as VA goes. A railroad and various towns and inlets make it difficult for an interstate highway to be routed through here.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: J3ebrules on July 27, 2019, 12:41:14 AM
Interesting to read this today after literally just arriving in VA beach after doing the NJ Delaware Memorial Bridge to DE 1 to US 113 to US 13 to the CBBT and wanting to scream the entire way through Delaware. Can someone explain why they won't run an interstate down the length of Delaware through all that nothing???

The existing routing of US 13 takes up the straightest alignment as far as VA goes. A railroad and various towns and inlets make it difficult for an interstate highway to be routed through here.

Is that railroad still active? I saw the tracks but I couldn't tell.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on July 27, 2019, 12:56:54 AM
Interesting to read this today after literally just arriving in VA beach after doing the NJ Delaware Memorial Bridge to DE 1 to US 113 to US 13 to the CBBT and wanting to scream the entire way through Delaware. Can someone explain why they won't run an interstate down the length of Delaware through all that nothing???

The existing routing of US 13 takes up the straightest alignment as far as VA goes. A railroad and various towns and inlets make it difficult for an interstate highway to be routed through here.

Is that railroad still active? I saw the tracks but I couldn't tell.

Yes and the southern end connects to a barge to Hampton Roads. Even if the railroad becomes abandoned there's still the towns and inlets along the way. There are a lot of small businesses and some homes along the way still.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 01:04:38 AM
IMO, the speed limit could easily be 60 mph for most of the stretch, a lot of parts even 65 mph. That would help a lot.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2019, 01:05:50 AM
IMO, the speed limit could easily be 60 mph for most of the stretch, a lot of parts even 65 mph. That would help a lot.

I'm fine with southbound since the bridge is bigger. But northbound, is more scary IMO. i wish it was widened.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 01:06:44 AM
Yes and the southern end connects to a barge to Hampton Roads. Even if the railroad becomes abandoned there's still the towns and inlets along the way. There are a lot of small businesses and some homes along the way still.

The Delmarva railroad will not be abandoned.  Virginia in particular spent a lot of public funding to keep it in operation.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on July 27, 2019, 01:11:52 AM
Interesting to read this today after literally just arriving in VA beach after doing the NJ Delaware Memorial Bridge to DE 1 to US 113 to US 13 to the CBBT and wanting to scream the entire way through Delaware. Can someone explain why they won't run an interstate down the length of Delaware through all that nothing???

The existing routing of US 13 takes up the straightest alignment as far as VA goes. A railroad and various towns and inlets make it difficult for an interstate highway to be routed through here.
From the end of DE 1 freeway, there's a lot of open space down the middle of the state - some farms but a lot of forest. That routing would avoid disturbing the towns or inlets but would require a lot of new construction and ROW, environmental impacts, money. Upgrading 13 or 113 on the spot would be much cheaper but would impact towns much more and require a lot of frontage roads for farm access. I would favor a separate freeway alignment myself for those reasons. However, 13 and 113 are generally able to handle all the through traffic. It's 1 that gets clogged, and that's not really the way to route a through freeway.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on July 27, 2019, 01:17:50 AM
Interesting to read this today after literally just arriving in VA beach after doing the NJ Delaware Memorial Bridge to DE 1 to US 113 to US 13 to the CBBT and wanting to scream the entire way through Delaware. Can someone explain why they won't run an interstate down the length of Delaware through all that nothing???

The existing routing of US 13 takes up the straightest alignment as far as VA goes. A railroad and various towns and inlets make it difficult for an interstate highway to be routed through here.
From the end of DE 1 freeway, there's a lot of open space down the middle of the state - some farms but a lot of forest. That routing would avoid disturbing the towns or inlets but would require a lot of new construction and ROW, environmental impacts, money. Upgrading 13 or 113 on the spot would be much cheaper but would impact towns much more and require a lot of frontage roads for farm access. I would favor a separate freeway alignment myself for those reasons. However, 13 and 113 are generally able to handle all the through traffic. It's 1 that gets clogged, and that's not really the way to route a through freeway.

Agreed, but I was talking about the Virginia segment.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 01:18:06 AM
IMO, the speed limit could easily be 60 mph for most of the stretch, a lot of parts even 65 mph. That would help a lot.

I'm fine with southbound since the bridge is bigger. But northbound, is more scary IMO. i wish it was widened.
I was referring to the surface sections of US-13 and US-113, not the bridge-tunnel.

The bridge-tunnel southbound span could reasonably have 60 mph, but there's no way they would change it in regards to safety reasons. 55 mph is appropriate on the northbound span until they widen the shoulders.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2019, 01:25:27 AM
IMO, the speed limit could easily be 60 mph for most of the stretch, a lot of parts even 65 mph. That would help a lot.

I'm fine with southbound since the bridge is bigger. But northbound, is more scary IMO. i wish it was widened.
I was referring to the surface sections of US-13 and US-113, not the bridge-tunnel.

I see now.

Quote
The bridge-tunnel southbound span could reasonably have 60 mph, but there's no way they would change it in regards to safety reasons. 55 mph is appropriate on the northbound span until they widen the shoulders.

Yeah I thought so.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 27, 2019, 09:04:13 AM
I moved sprjus4's posts and the ones below it to Fictional Highways.   -Mark



https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25420.0
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2019, 10:29:06 PM
That's a terrible stretch in my opinion. One time I think there was a speeding truck driver that knocked over a car when driving on the bridge. I don't know when it was though. That's also another reason why I'm afraid of driving on that bridge.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 28, 2019, 07:10:34 AM
That's a terrible stretch in my opinion. One time I think there was a speeding truck driver that knocked over a car when driving on the bridge. I don't know when it was though. That's also another reason why I'm afraid of driving on that bridge.

Is this the incident you are referring to? (https://pilotonline.com/news/local/article_397f9386-f804-11e8-bba6-0f9d4164411c.html)
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 10:53:03 AM
That's a terrible stretch in my opinion. One time I think there was a speeding truck driver that knocked over a car when driving on the bridge. I don't know when it was though. That's also another reason why I'm afraid of driving on that bridge.

Is this the incident you are referring to? (https://pilotonline.com/news/local/article_397f9386-f804-11e8-bba6-0f9d4164411c.html)

Yeah that. That's why this bridge needs a second bridge and tunnel badly.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 12:21:20 PM
That's a terrible stretch in my opinion. One time I think there was a speeding truck driver that knocked over a car when driving on the bridge. I don't know when it was though. That's also another reason why I'm afraid of driving on that bridge.

Is this the incident you are referring to? (https://pilotonline.com/news/local/article_397f9386-f804-11e8-bba6-0f9d4164411c.html)

Yeah that. That's why this bridge needs a second bridge and tunnel badly.
It already has 2 bridges... 2 lanes northbound and 2 lanes southbound. The tunnels are the only part that’s 2-lanes (one each way) and one of the tunnels is currently under construction to get another tube. There’s only one tunnel remaining after this that will still only be one tube.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 07:17:15 PM
That's a terrible stretch in my opinion. One time I think there was a speeding truck driver that knocked over a car when driving on the bridge. I don't know when it was though. That's also another reason why I'm afraid of driving on that bridge.

Is this the incident you are referring to? (https://pilotonline.com/news/local/article_397f9386-f804-11e8-bba6-0f9d4164411c.html)

Yeah that. That's why this bridge needs a second bridge and tunnel badly.
It already has 2 bridges... 2 lanes northbound and 2 lanes southbound. The tunnels are the only part that’s 2-lanes (one each way) and one of the tunnels is currently under construction to get another tube. There’s only one tunnel remaining after this that will still only be one tube.

I didn't know that they were under construction already. Interesting. I guess they will demolish the bridges that shift to one tunnel.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on February 06, 2020, 07:49:39 PM
New traffic pattern starts Thursday on Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (https://www.wavy.com/traffic/new-traffic-pattern-starts-thursday-on-chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel/?fbclid=IwAR0NIqJLBfjSD6nc4ge0-gq-u0iO-bKvqbaxxpUn_HztPkSxUPrtLOg84S4)
Quote
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel is starting the second phase of its Milling and Paving Project.

The traffic pattern will take place on the northern portion of the CBBT from Portal Island No. 4 to the North Toll Plaza on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. It’s expected to last until May.

Milling and repaving will be performed on a portion of the northbound span.

The bridge-tunnel will stay open to all traffic, but traffic will be reduced to two lanes, creating a bi-directional flow for about 10 miles.

Officials urge drivers to use caution and say no passing will be allowed during this traffic shift.

The scenic overlook will be closed during this time.

This project is scheduled to be complete with all lanes open to traffic by May 2020 before the spring/summer seasons.  The scenic overlook will also reopen to travelers at this time.
Due to weather, this project was delayed, though will likely begin soon. 10 miles of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel facility on the northern end will be reduced to 2-lanes until May, with passing prohibited.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Beltway on February 06, 2020, 08:35:17 PM
Quote
Milling and repaving will be performed on a portion of the northbound span.
Due to weather, this project was delayed, though will likely begin soon. 10 miles of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel facility on the northern end will be reduced to 2-lanes until May, with passing prohibited.
This is the original trestle that was rehabbed in the Parallel Trestle Project 1995-1999.

(http://www.roadstothefuture.com/CBBT_NT_N_1198.jpg)

Above, original span, just north of the northernmost manmade island.  Notice the new asphalt surface that has been placed on the 34-year-old [as of 1999] trestle. The North Channel Bridges are in the distance on the right.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/CBBT_Photos_1198.html
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 16, 2020, 06:47:21 PM
How quickly do you think a vehicle like this will be stopped from crossing the bridge?

https://vintage-trailer.tumblr.com/image/189774929155
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: froggie on March 20, 2020, 12:32:02 PM
Very quickly.  For starters, it wouldn't fit through the toll booths except through the oversize lane on the far right of each toll plaza.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 20, 2020, 07:16:00 PM
Very quickly.  For starters, it wouldn't fit through the toll booths except through the oversize lane on the far right of each toll plaza.

I think I recall reading that the CBBTD will allow overwidth vehicles and loads to cross by special permit, but they have to make the crossing late at night, and traffic will be halted both ways at each tunnel until the overwidth has cleared them. 
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 21, 2020, 02:52:02 PM
Very quickly.  For starters, it wouldn't fit through the toll booths except through the oversize lane on the far right of each toll plaza.

I think I recall reading that the CBBTD will allow overwidth vehicles and loads to cross by special permit, but they have to make the crossing late at night, and traffic will be halted both ways at each tunnel until the overwidth has cleared them. 
Well, those gigantic LP gas tanks on the fenders make things a lot worse.

Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 21, 2020, 03:12:38 PM
Well, those gigantic LP gas tanks on the fenders make things a lot worse.

Yes, thanks for pointing those out - the positioning of those tanks might well make this vehicle illegal to operate on any public street, road or highway in the United States.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on October 01, 2020, 04:52:49 PM
Has anyone heard anything about this?

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/09/30/chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-construction-is-years-behind/
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2020, 09:22:30 PM
Has anyone heard anything about this?

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/09/30/chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-construction-is-years-behind/

The reason is the boulders.

Why? Well, the reporter didn't tell us.

Another great reporting job there.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 09:42:04 PM
^

Here's a more detailed article from the Virginian-Pilot, along with a photo of construction from September 30, 2020.

Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel expansion is 2 years behind schedule (https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/vp-nw-cbbt-expansion-rock-problem-20200929-5mfd76h5o5cahejr7mcdduwmpi-story.html)
Quote
(https://www.pilotonline.com/resizer/JteaOCVUpncSNYZvVOtWAvMvFhk=/800x479/top/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/J7NWHNFLABAJTLB6C2ETBJEEIU.jpg)Construction of a new tube at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel is now two years behind, due in part to the latest headache: The granite boulders armoring the manmade islands are proving exceptionally difficult to deal with.

The boulders, some so big only two could fit on a rail car when they were hauled in 60 years ago, provide form and protection for the four artificial islands anchoring the portals of the facility’s two original tubes.

Expansion plans call for adding two additional tunnels to parallel the old ones, putting an end to the two-way traffic flow inside in the existing tubes.

To do the job, a fresh technology — at least in Hampton Roads — was chosen. A tunnel boring machine will be used instead of the traditional immersed tube method. Problems have now pushed the wrap-up date to 2024.

Work on the first parallel tunnel started in 2017. Diving under the shipping channel closest to Virginia Beach, running more than a mile between the first and second islands, it was scheduled to be completed for $756 million in 2022.

Permitting caused delays. Another hold-up occurred last year when a primary sub-contractor was removed for nonperformance.

And now, the boulder obstacle.

Everyone knew the rocks were there, of course. But according to Mike Crist, the bridge-tunnel’s deputy executive director of infrastructure, the project’s main contractors — Dragados USA and Schiavone Construction — didn’t grasp just how formidable the boulders would be.

“They’re saying they’re thicker and deeper than they thought,” Crist said.

Here’s the picture:

The islands were created by placing boulders, chiseled from the mountains of central Virginia, on the bay bottom in an oblong ring, more than a football field wide and at least four times as long. Sand was pumped in to fill the interior, then more boulders placed on top, like a turtle’s shell.

Tunnel boring machines come in different models, with some designed to eat through such hard rock, but the machine ordered for the CBBT can only handle soft soil, which makes up the vast bulk of the tunnel’s route.

But to reach that soft soil, it must be launched from a pit on the island and mine its way out.

Boulders can be removed to create a hole, but it’s not simple. Removing too many could endanger the integrity of the entire island and the existing tube, especially if a nor’easter or hurricane rolls in.

Removing just enough requires building a structure to shore up the walls of such a narrow opening. That’s what contractors have been attempting to do, pounding steel pilings through the outer shell to create a sort of coffer dam.

“Imagine trying to drive a nail through granite rock,” Crist said. “Progress going through there is much, much slower than anticipated.”

Crist said the contractors are searching for answers and plan to meet with bridge-tunnel authorities soon to discuss any options they come up with. No tax money has gone into the project, and Crist said any additional costs are expected to fall on the contractors.

“Or at least that’s our position,” he said.

More boulders await at the far end, where the boring machine will need to surface on the second island, so the challenge must be solved, Crist said.

Construction on the next parallel tunnel isn’t expected before 2037, so who knows what technology will be available then.

A tunnel boring machine will be used to build new tubes at the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, a project that recently received the green light to start construction.

But the HRBT won’t encounter the same trouble, Crist said.

The HRBT’s islands are similar to the CBBT’s but larger, offering more options for portal placement, allowing a boring machine to angle under the perimeter rock instead of through it.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: ixnay on November 26, 2020, 07:39:00 AM
I don't know if anyone has posted any memories of the fishing pier and restaurant gift shop, but here I go...

I stopped at Thimble Shoal twice:  1) in 1970 with my dad and stepmom (I remember eating at the restaurant) on our way to Jacksonville, NC to stay a few days with my dad's Marine captain friend stationed at Lejeune (we stayed with the family in their off-base house) and 2) in 1988 on my way to an autumn vacation in VA Beach followed by a couple of nights in Williamsburg (thus partaking of both the CBBT and the HRBT, and I also drove through the I-264 tunnel [which was free then]).  IIRC the MMBT was under construction.

ixnay
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on March 01, 2021, 10:34:01 PM
Find it funny how they would squeeze 4 lanes into one tunnel.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on March 02, 2021, 12:06:38 AM
Find it funny how they would squeeze 4 lanes into one tunnel.
what
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: sprjus4 on March 24, 2021, 12:42:10 PM
Project 2045-1A - Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel: Parallel Chesapeake Tunnel Preliminary Engineering - $4.8 million (CBBT sources) - was added to the HRTPO 2045 LRTP Draft List.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: tolbs17 on July 18, 2021, 03:08:46 AM
Find it funny how they would squeeze 4 lanes into one tunnel.
what
based on what I see on that article/improvement plan.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps on July 18, 2021, 01:31:50 PM
Find it funny how they would squeeze 4 lanes into one tunnel.
what
based on what I see on that article/improvement plan.
the existing tunnel is 2 lanes. they're not replacing it, they're adding a second one.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2021, 06:35:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Alps 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.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus 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).
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: cpzilliacus 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).
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 06, 2021, 11:47:42 PM
I stopped there many of times and even  took photos of the signs and tunnels there.
Oh, I took them too a while back. I'm only sorry I didn't have a digital camera back then.

Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: kernals12 on November 13, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
I clinched this along with I-64 and I-664 on Tuesday. It was really cool.

I also learned at the Hampton Roads Naval Museum that barnacles that accumulate on the bridge piers make great habitat for fish.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: plain on November 13, 2021, 05:02:23 PM
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'm late (not sure how I missed this before). That original 4-lane tunnel was going to be deeper to allow a better draft for vessels passing over it (basically Post-Panamax). But yeah costs were definitely the issue.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 31, 2022, 07:32:25 PM
I'm trying to refresh my memory on the Hazmat regulations on the bridge and tunnel

http://www.cbbt.com/travel-information/hazmat-regulations/

So does this mean that one of my uncles who has COPD and is on a portable breathing machine and may or may not need oxygen tanks simply can't ride along the bridge as a passenger?


Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2022, 08:18:09 PM
I'm trying to refresh my memory on the Hazmat regulations on the brudge and tunnel

http://www.cbbt.com/travel-information/hazmat-regulations/

So does this mean that one of my uncles who has COPD and is on a portable breathing machine and may or may not need oxygen tanks simply can't ride along the bridge as a passenger?




no


From http://www.cbbt.com/travel-information/hazmat-regulations/
Quote
(2) Class 2, division 2.1 flammable gas is permitted provided quantities do not exceed 120 gallons in 6 gallon containers or less, with exceptions for LPG, which is restricted to two 60 pound cylinders LPG capacity, approximately 141 pounds water capacity each, or any combination of cylinders less than 60 pounds LPG capacity, with a total of 120 pounds LPG capacity;
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2022, 12:31:19 AM
I'm trying to refresh my memory on the Hazmat regulations on the brudge and tunnel

http://www.cbbt.com/travel-information/hazmat-regulations/

So does this mean that one of my uncles who has COPD and is on a portable breathing machine and may or may not need oxygen tanks simply can't ride along the bridge as a passenger?


As was pointed out above, even a regular propane tank isn't banned.  The signage doesn't spell it out, but most tunnel restrictions are for mass quantities and CDL drivers, not Jane and Joe in their sedan, SUV, or even camper.
Title: Re: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Post by: Mapmikey on April 01, 2022, 09:41:17 AM
I was surprised to see the amount of radioactive material that is allowed over the CBBT.  This may be because medical isotopes needed on the Eastern Shore come from Norfolk, etc. and it would be prohibitively expense to have to transport these (generally) short-lived materials by helicopter or plane.  Also residual radioactive waste of the longer-lived materials would be headed to locations not in the Northeast.  The limitation for them would be the 500 pounds CBBT threshold.  300 Curies is a large quantity of radioactive material (in terms of how many atoms are decaying per second, not its mass - 300 Curies of Radium-226 would be just 300 g of actual material) and medical radioactive waste is quite unlikely to be anywhere near that much.  The mass comes from objects that have/ may have come into contact with the radioactivity (gloves, gowns, tubes, etc.)

By contrast, the Baltimore tunnels disallow any amount (not sure about amounts considered exempt from DOT and/or NRC regulations) of any radionuclide.  This is overly restrictive because many of the radioactive materials that would use the tunnels (lots of hospitals that use medical isotopes) are in tiny amounts relative to any harm they could do and they often have very short half-lives.