THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, December 10, 1995 TAG: 9512080176
SECTION: CHESAPEAKE CLIPPER PAGE: 03 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: By MAC DANIEL, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Medium: 79 lines
Come Tuesday, the Chesapeake City Council is scheduled to decide on a final location for a new and improved Route 168.
The three choices remain, more or less, the same. However, after discussions with environmental officials, the alternative supported by city staff has been modified to make future environmental approval run smoothly.
The council was to decide on the road's final location at their Nov. 14 meeting. However, after concerns arose about tolls, the location of intersections and access to the new road, council members delayed their vote until this Tuesday.
If and when a vote is taken, the decision will commit the council and the city to one of three options for the proposed road - the city's single most important road project in the past several years.
This would be the second time a location for a new Battlefield Boulevard has been chosen by the council. After firming up a location in 1988, a change in state environmental laws forced the city to reevaluate the route. Nine alternatives were then narrowed down to the present three.
The road has many other bureaucratic obstacles to cross before it becomes reality. Environmental agencies still have to issue permits for the road to be built, and questions about who will fund the road and who will build it remain unresolved. There is still talk of having a private contractor build the road.
At a public meeting to allow citizens to choose which of the three options they would like, citizens favored Alternative 1 by a margin of 2-to-1 over the other options. Alternative 1 is a mostly new road that would parallel the existing road. Of all the options offered, Alternative 1 is the most expensive and the one favored most by city staff.
But since the public meeting, that route has undergone changes. Rather than being a separate road running parallel to the current Battlefield Boulevard, plans now call for the road to join up with the current road before the Northwest River. This allows the city to expand the existing bridge over the river rather than building a new one.
Although the cost for this alternative remains at $110 million, city officials said this change will allow the city to more easily get the required federal environmental permits.
City staff members have been talking with the environmental agencies for feedback on the proposed routes. They modified Alternative 1 as a result of these discussions, according to city staff.
The modified first alternative, known as Alternative 1, is a four-lane limited-access highway that runs parallel to the existing Route 168, starting at the southern end of the Great Bridge Bypass and running west of Route 168.
The road parallels the road up until the Northwest River, where it joins the existing Battlefield Boulevard. From there, the existing road is proposed to be widened to a total of four lanes. This alignment is still estimated to cost $110 million.
The second alternative, known as Alternative 5, is a widened version of the current Route 168, running from the southern end of the Great Bridge Bypass to the state line. The cost of this option is estimated at $99 million.
The third and final alternative, known as Alternative 6, combines the first two alternatives for the road. This alternative follows Alternative 1 to north of Indian Creek Road, where it follows the existing roadway. It then follows the road to the Northwest River, where it moves east before meeting the current Route 168 near the state line. The cost is an estimated $94 million.
Council delayed the vote on the road's location for several reasons, one of which was the use of tolls.
Under the road's current funding formula, both Alternatives 1 and 6 are heavily dependent on tolls. Both roads are preliminarily budgeted to receive at least $18 million from Virginia's toll facilities revolving account.
That money, if used by the city, would require both options to be toll roads. In order to receive these funds, tolls must be used. A portion of the proceeds from the road would then be sent back to replenish that state toll account. ILLUSTRATION: Drawing
by CNB