|
November 25, 1965
<br />
<br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on November 25, 1965, there
<br />
<br />R. Irvine Smith, Jack P. Barnes, John L. Dillon, George D. Hastes,
<br />Burrell R. Johnson, W. T. Leery, A. P. Johnson, Jr., City Manager,
<br />and M. A. Korb, Jr., City Attorney.
<br />
<br />The meeting was opened with prayer by Mr. Hastes.
<br />
<br />Minutes of regular meeting held on November 9, 1965, were read and approved.
<br />
<br />65-297 - Public hearing on the following was held:
<br />
<br />"CP-5-65 VOLUME II, HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
<br />AND IMPLEmeNTATION PROGP~{, SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
<br />REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY, ~ILBUR SMITH AND
<br />ASSOCIATES, 1965", as appended withFPage 14-A,
<br />"OVERALL STREET PLAN, CRA~PORD CRESCENT", and
<br />recommended by the Southeastern Virginia
<br />Regional Planning Commission and Portsmouth
<br />City Planning Commission, which resolution
<br />follows:
<br />
<br /> "WHEREAS, Congress in its National Act of 1962 established
<br />prerequisit&s to Federal Mead construction grants-in-aid now binding upon our city and metropolitan
<br />area, and
<br /> ~{BREAS, without financial assistance from the United States
<br />government, recognized needs for new roa-~ghways, freeways, river bridges, interchanges and railway
<br />grad~ separations and modernization of existing automotive arterials will go unfulfilled, and
<br />
<br /> WHHREAS, at a cost of $456,000 the Virginia Department of Highways
<br />has developed, in cooperation with the Sout~stern Virginia Regional Planning Ce~unission, the Cities
<br />of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach, the County of Nansemond, the United
<br />States Bureau of Public Roads, the Housing and Home Finance Agency, and the firm of Wilbur Smith and
<br />Associates a document titled "HIG~AY TP~kNSPORTATION ELAN AND IMPLEmeNTATION PROGRAM, SOUTHEASTERN
<br />VIRGINIA REGION, ~RIL 1965", which was properly advertised, considered at a public hearingl appended
<br />and r~commended for adoption to each member locality of the Southeastern Virginia Regional Planning
<br />Commission, and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the Portsmouth City Planning Commission on September 7,
<br />1965, held an advertised public hearing ~t--~aforesaid document as recommended by the Southeastern
<br />Virginia Regional Planning Commission under a local title, "CP-5-65";
<br />
<br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PORTSMOUTH CITY PLANNING
<br />
<br />CO~LSSION:
<br />
<br /> THAT, Document "CP-3-65", also known as "HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION
<br />PLAN AND IMPLE~IENTATION PROGRAM, SOMTIiEASTERN VIRGINIA REGION, APRIL 1965" as appended and recommended
<br />by the Southeastern Virginia Regional Planning Commission pmrsuant to Section 15.1-455 of the Code of
<br />Virginia, 1950, as amended, is hereby recommended for adoption to the Portsmouth City Council pursuanz
<br />to S~ctions 15.1-452 and 15.1-455 of tile Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, subject to the following
<br />exceptions, appendages, amendments and reservations:
<br />
<br /> 1. FINANCING: 'From a general analysis of anticipated highway
<br />revenues from state sources expected to be allocated to the Southeastern Virginia Regi0hhl Area, it is
<br />apparent that additional funds must be made available if the recommended plan is to be implemented
<br />within the program period." (p.~) The plan admits financing and phasing elements cannot be adopted
<br />as submitted. Program staging and implementation outlined in Chapters S and 6 can only be considered
<br />as "desirable" or "guideline"in nature. This Commission notes the lack of adequate funds for sorely
<br />needed highway construction in burgeoning urban areas. Statement P. 179: "A portion of the recommended
<br />Metropolitan Loop (Freeway) consists of a new tube and improved approaches at the Midtown Tunnel. The
<br />costs of this facility, amounting to $20,$S0,000 have been allocated to Norfolk and Portsmouth, although
<br />the facility is within the City of Chesapeake. With the terminals of the new tunnel located in Norfolk
<br />and Portsmouth, a~d with no direct service afforded to the City of Chesapeake, the development costs
<br />will amount to $10,089,000 for the City of Norfolk and $10,261,000 fo~ Portsmouth." Since the plan
<br />provides no explanation of the cost allocation and no mention of the Elizabeth River Ttmnel Commission,
<br />the questions of operation and maintenance of the facility ahd the collection of tolls remain unanswered.
<br />Exception must be taken to this item until such matters have been clarifiedf
<br />
<br /> 2. REALLOCATION OF MAINTENANCE FUND~ TO CONSTRUCTION: The plan
<br />calls for two-thirds of the cities' maintenance funds to be used for construction of proposed arterial
<br />streets (p. 198). Maintenance funds should not be so diverted, and construction funds should be secured
<br />from other sources. The question of mounting maintenance costs ~hould be considered further.
<br />
<br /> S. NBHD FOR INTENSIFIED LAND USE-HIGHWAY PLANNING: "Realization
<br />of the implementation program, together with continuation of the highway transportation planning process,
<br />will require administrative organization, adequate financing, regulation of land uses, traffic planning,
<br />and control of public works expenditures." ~p.v.) The Commission notes the new requirements imposed
<br />by the National Highway Act of 1962 to insure the continued receipt of Federal highway funds. Accordingly,
<br />steps must be taken to bolster our local staff programs~ and stronger ties with the Southeastern Virginia
<br />Regional Planning Commission must be established.
<br />
<br /> 4. CRAWFORD CRESCENT: On pp. 15, 15, 27 and 170, reference is
<br />made to Crawford Parkway, Crawford Street, and Crawford Boulevard extended to Interstate 264 at Washington
<br />
<br />
<br />
|