Chesapeake Steel Bridge Project (Dominion Blvd.) Bike Access

from the Tidewater Bicycle Association, prepared by Bruce Drees

The following essay is in regard to an article titled “Chesapeake Bicycle Corridor Becomes a Path to Frustration” appearing in the Virginian-Pilot on Sep. 1st. The genesis for the article, and this response, was a Chesapeake City Council workshop held on Aug. 19 with state and federal officials about the Dominion Blvd project. Tidewater Bicycle Association, which has members residing in the City of Chesapeake, adopted this document as its position in support of maintaining bike and pedestrian access in the project design.

Not long ago a friend was bicycling on a rural road in Chesapeake, not far from where a planned major expansion of Dominion Blvd is under consideration. Someone in a truck going in the opposite direction tossed a beer bottle, striking him in the face. The impact caused him to crash and a loss of consciousness. Fortunately, a passing motorist took notice and summoned help.

Watching a video of the Aug. 19th Chesapeake City Council meeting evoked images of my friend’s ordeal. Except this time it wasn’t a beer aficionado tossing bottles but smiling elected officials wearing suits. And this time the target wasn’t a single cyclist, but anyone who wants to get somewhere by bike or on foot in the City of Chesapeake.

In the clip, one can watch a U.S. Congressman, aided by state and local elected officials, strike blow after blow to a planned trail and bridge crossing for cyclists and pedestrians currently included in the Dominion Blvd roadway project. Party affiliation appears irrelevant, as members of both parties had a hand, right down to scolding city officials for not killing such an audacious proposal at birth. The congressman even pushes Chesapeake’s new mayor into promising to deliver a final coup de grâce via a council vote this fall.

Unfortunately good governance was also struck a blow. We elect officials recognizing the difficult job they will have sifting through competing interests. We have every expectation they will do their best to apply scarce resources to the greatest need, after thoughtful consideration based upon input from all sides.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Instead, we have officials using questionable assumptions to make what may someday turn out to be a very shortsighted decision. Allow me to elaborate.

First, the much ballyhooed $16 million cost figure cited by the city and taken as gospel by everyone else. Local bike and trail supporters have questioned this number from the beginning. From the Pilot’s Sep. 1st article, it appears that even professionals in the field such as VDOT have yet to understand exactly what this would buy. Objectivity is an issue, since the same city staff citing the figure told advocates early on that they would do everything in their power to sink any proposal for a multi-use path over the bridge.

That citizens many years from now may seek to resurrect this initiative cannot be discounted. The costs will never be cheaper than including a multi-use bridge crossing option in the original plan.

Let’s look at some of the other negatives that were discussed.

It should be no surprise that a narrow, shoulder less, 55 mph roadway carrying 32,000 cars a day has little bike or pedestrian activity. Yet this was stated as one of the reasons for killing the plan. At present people may walk and bicycle over the existing bridge and even though the traffic is very heavy, everyone manages to get where they need to go. Using current traffic counts as a principal basis for rejection ignores likely growth and redevelopment cycles within the city during the bridge’s long lifespan.

Another reason stated was bridge height. At 95 ft over the river, the replacement will be a noticeable structure above the flats of southeast Virginia. But is it really true that few would be able to bike across it? Hardly.

Case in point: the Cooper River Bridge in Charleston, SC which opened in 2005. It provides a 200 ft clearance, carries 8 lanes of traffic for US 17 and has a 12 foot wide bike-pedestrian lane. Its average grade (4-5 %) is very similar to that proposed for the Steel Bridge replacement. Bicycling over the bridge has become an attraction in its own right, with enterprising merchants renting bikes solely for this purpose, including moonlight trips. An annual 10K run that attracts over 30,000 participants is routed over the bridge. Such use is very unlikely here; but as Charleston’s experience shows, our cyclists, walkers, and runners will adapt and handle a 95 ft bridge just fine.

On the topic of bridge height, what exactly is the justification for a 95 ft clearance? Who will be the primary beneficiary? Are lower cost alternatives available, such as building a 65 ft fixed span or relocating vessels requiring extra clearance further upriver? In the quest for fiscal responsibility, why aren’t these questions being asked?

Some of the officials stated they are not anti-bike. That’s good, but then why are they willing to support road projects solely benefiting motorists, when a means for recreation, transportation, health and fitness can be part of our daily lives? For instance, the Dominion Bridge is only 4.5 miles from the Dismal Swamp Canal Trail, which equates to about a 45 minute ride for the most casual family cyclist. Instead of getting in the family car to get to the park, wouldn’t having use of a nearby trail make more sense?

Even motorists should be up in arms that the project is not supported. Every bike commuter is one less car on the road competing for a spot in traffic or parking.

The Elizabeth River and Chesapeake & Albemarle Canal cleave Chesapeake almost in half. As of this writing there are 6 bike and pedestrian accessible bridge crossings. The combined loss of the Jordan Bridge later this year and potentially Dominion results in a 33% reduction in non-motorized facilities. Loss of bridge access is a very significant concern for all of our 500+ members.

Recognizing the current national energy situation and desire for choice in our transportation needs, a better scenario would have been for our politicians to have first validated the $16M cost figure as accurate. Further verifying that no alternatives exist such as deferring certain aspects for a later date or inquiring about less expensive designs would also have been preferable to what played out. Instead of pressuring the mayor and city manager into shredding the city’s bikeways and trails plan, couldn’t officials have taken the time to understand it, asking planners for viable alternatives should accommodations along Dominion not be possible? Wouldn’t taking the view that bridges are a critical infrastructure item and a regional asset for all users of the public right of way provide more benefit in the long run?

No one can accurately predict what our energy future looks like ten, twenty or thirty years from now. It’s a pretty safe bet there will be change of some kind, perhaps by moving closer to where we work and shop, what we drive, and when we do. The economics of energy may well force other changes, such as substantial reductions in car trips close to home in favor of other modes. We can either lead the problem or be totally reactive; it’s a relevant topic and one of the most difficult political choices of our time. An out of hand dismissal of the Dominion project under the pretense that it solely benefits the “cycling elite” gets us nowhere.

One organization attending the council workshop understands the big picture. Much to their credit, the Commonwealth Transportation Board and VDOT have taken on a broad view of transportation that goes beyond cars. This includes making telecommuting, transit/rail, cycling, and walking viable choices for our residents. It is an effort to move Virginia’s transportation system into the 21st century and help make our state economy more invariant to major fluctuations in global energy costs. At least they recognize the importance of establishing a range of complementary transportation modes. Participants at council’s meeting would do well in following their lead in seeking innovative yet cost effective solutions.

The Virginian-Pilot’s reporters also need to chill out. One can easily envision a contra headline or op-ed piece years from now during a significant energy crisis deriding political inaction when we had the chance. Quit pitting both sides against the middle.

Cyclists, walkers, runners and other non-motorized users of the public right of way may not have been physically assaulted during the Aug. 19th council meeting. But they were shown the same underlying contempt and disregard as my friend received by that beer toting driver. Our political leadership can and must do better than what we have seen so far on Dominion, especially at the state and national level.

One final note. I am employed as R&D manager for a tech company here in Hampton Roads. We have the kind of jobs that communities drool for. As with most tech companies, we also have a proportionately high number of employees who choose cycling as a form of transportation and recreation. In fact, not long ago I was lured away from a company in Chesapeake by one in Virginia Beach. The ability to bike to work tipped my decision in favor of relocating. The city’s image in this regard is an ancillary factor that one might want to also consider.

Prepared By

Bruce Drees
Tidewater Bicycle Association
921 Winthrope Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
757-647-3987
bwd-vb@cox.net

Related Articles:

• No related articles found.