Musings on the Third Crossing

The issue of the Third Crossing spanning Hampton Roads arose in Gov.-elect Tim Kaine's latest "town hall" meeting, on the Virginia Peninsula. According to press reports, a couple of speakers bucked the conventional wisdom and questioned whether a third crossing from Norfolk to Newport News would be the most efficient expenditure of funds.

Here's a question I have about the Third Crossing: It would relieve bottlenecks at the two existing bridge-tunnels, but wouldn't it just create a new bottleneck on Interstate 64?

The need for a Third Crossing is most commonly justified on the following grounds: (1) Increasing truck traffic generated by the expanding ports; (2) An evacuation path in the event of a hurricane or some other disaster; and (3) congestion associated with summertime beach tourists. So, let's say we spend the $3 billion-plus dollars to build the crossing and run a bridge from the vicinity of the Norfolk International Terminals all the way to the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge-Tunnel where it touches land at Newport News. Let's say that trucks, tourists, evacuees find themselves mercifully free of congestion on the bridge-tunnels. Then what?

Then they hit I-64 in Newport News. In my experience, the most predictable congestion (if not necessarily the worse) is where I-64 narrows from four lanes to three and from three lanes to two. It doesn't matter how many bridges you build across Hampton Roads, you still have to squeeze four lanes of traffic into two on I-64! From what I can tell, all the $3 billion buys you is a displacement of congestion from the bridge-tunnels to a point 10 or so miles to the northwest.

Hampton Roads needs to address system-wide congestion, not just spot congestion. And that would require adding a third lane to I-64 all the way to Richmond, would it not? If I'm missing something, please point it out to me.