SD9 - Vehicular Connections Between Norfolk and Portsmouth

  • Published: 1973
  • Author: Vehicular Connections Commission
  • Enabling Authority: Senate Joint Resolution 31 (Regular Session, 1971)

Executive Summary:

This report is a result of the directive contained in Senate Joint Resolution No. 31 passed by the 1971 Special Session of the General Assembly.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 23 passed by the 1972 Regular Session of the General Assembly continued the original Commission and directed the Commission to carry out its original charges.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 120 passed by the 1973 General Assembly continued the Commission to initiate actions recommended in the Report of the Commission.

Pursuant to the study directive, the Governor appointed Edwin R. MacKethan, Esquire, Norfolk, and L. Shields Parsons, Jr., Esquire, Norfolk. The President of the Senate appointed Senators Peter K. Babalas, Norfolk, and Willard J. Moody, Portsmouth. The Speaker of the House of Delegates appointed J. Warren White, Jr., Norfolk, Stanley G. Bryan, Chesapeake, and Lester E. Schlitz, Portsmouth. Senate Joint Resolution No. 31 named the following officials as members of the Commission: Phillip A. Stedfast, Director of Planning for Norfolk; J. Brewer Moore, Director of Planning for Portsmouth; Milton A. Perry, Director of Planning for Chesapeake; Thomas I. Miller, Director of Planning for Hampton; A. J. Stodghill, Director of Planning for Newport News; Robert F. Foeller, Director, Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, Norfolk; Henry M. Cochran, Director, Peninsula Planning District Commission, Hampton ; Douglas B. Fugate, Commissioner of Department of Highways, Richmond; and Robert H. Kirby, Director of Division of State Planning and Community Affairs, Richmond. The Commission elected as its Chairman, Senator Willard J. Moody, and as Vice-Chairman Edwin R. MacKethan, Esquire.

Mr. K. M. Wilkinson, Transportation. Planning Engineer, Department of Highways, Spencer H. Elmore, Chief, Transportation Planning, Division of State Planning and Community Affairs, and Mr. David Krueger of the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission also rendered assistance to the Commission during the course of the study. The Virginia Advisory Legislative Council and the Division of Statutory Research and Drafting made staff and facilities available to carry out the study, Roger C. Wiley, Jr., succeeded by L. Willis Robertson, Jr. and E. M. Miller being assigned to assist the study group. The members of the Commission wish to express their appreciation to its staff and advisers for the excellent services they rendered.

After its first three meetings which included a public hearing in Portsmouth, it became clear that the services of a professional consultant with expertise in the transportation and financial fields would greatly expedite the tasks assigned the Commission. Senator Willard J. Moody, the Chairman of the Commission, was able to obtain an appropriation from the 1972 Regular Session of the General Assembly for use by the Commission in retaining a consultant. At the first meeting of the Commission after the 1972 Regular Session of the General Assembly adjourned, a Special Subcommittee of the Commission consisting of Robert F. Foeller, Chairman, J. Brewer Moore, A. J. Stodghill and Senator Willard J. Moody, as an ex officio member, was appointed to define a scope of study for the consulting firm selected and interview prospective consultants.

The members of the Special Subcommittee met on a number of occasions and interviewed representatives from several consulting firms. The firm of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. was recommended by the Special Subcommittee and selected by the Commission as its consultant after the firm agreed to meet the scope of study prepared by the Commission.

During its existence the Commission has held frequent meetings in the areas likely to be affected by the results of the study, including Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Hampton. After the firm of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. began work, the Commission met frequently with the staff of the firm. The Commission members were able in this manner to exchange ideas with the representatives of the firm and, therefore, the report in part reflects the guidance of the members of the Commission.