HD26 - Financial Alternatives for Funding the George P. Coleman Bridge

  • Published: 1990
  • Author: Department of Transportation
  • Enabling Authority: House Resolution 92 (Regular Session, 1989)

Executive Summary:
The improvement of the George P. Coleman Bridge was identified as a need by the Governor's Commission on Transportation in the Twenty-first Century to be accomplished with special funding. It was recognized that this costly project could not be accomplished with funds from normal sources.

Based on the conclusions from the environmental impact study for this project and toll analyses conducted by its staff, the Commonwealth Transportation Board resolved that the existing bridge be widened and that tolls be reinstituted to provide the revenue for the improvements.

In response to the concerns of citizens and elected officials, the Commonwealth Transportation Board reconsidered its action on reinstituting the toll to allow the General Assembly and voters an opportunity to investigate alternative methods of funding the project.

As requested by House Resolution No. 92, passed by the 1989 General Assembly, the Virginia Department of Transportation has conducted a study of financial alternatives for funding improvements to the George P. Coleman Bridge.

The normal funding source for this project would be through the primary route system allocations. If this process were to be used, it would require that 45 percent of the total primary funds allocated to the Fredericksburg and Suffolk districts in the current Six-Year Program be dedicated to this single project. Financing solely with primary funds is not a viable alternative.

Several sources of Federal funds for special projects are demonstration funds, defense access funds, and bridge discretionary funds. While these programs have provided funds for special projects in the past, it is highly unlikely that significant financing will be available from these sources beyond the current demonstration funds that have been provided.

The creation of transportation districts is provided for by the Code to finance such projects as the Coleman Bridge improvements. However, special legislation would have to be passed to allow the appropriate counties to establish such a district, as they do not qualify under the current criteria. This alternative would increase taxes in these jurisdictions and it does not appear that it would generate sufficient revenue to completely address the funding need.

Toll financing, fees placed on users of the facility, was analyzed by the VDOT staff prior to the Commonwealth Transportation Board making its decision to reinstitute the toll. The result of the analysis was that toll financing is a viable option and the most prudent way to generate the revenue for the project.

With regard to the Commonwealth Transportation Board's resolution delaying the reinstitution of the toll, no further action regarding tolls will be made until the citizens have an opportunity to study alternative financing methods. Under this resolution, tolls would be reinstituted on July 1, 1991 in order to proceed with right-of-way acquisition.

If no other viable financing alternative is found, the reinstitution of the toll may need to be at a higher rate than those set by the Board in their March 16, 1989, resolution. The Board's action also permits VDOT to proceed with preliminary engineering so that design will be completed and ready for advertisement by fiscal year 1993.

With a favorable referendum on pledge bonds, the Commonwealth Transportation Board would have the ability to finance the improvements to the Coleman Bridge from the pledge bonds, demonstration funds, tolls, and primary allocations.