Minutes 11/12/1946 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

study: The following letter was read ~ad referred to the City ~!~uager for '~This is to form~ly advise your honored board of action taken at the September meeting of the Board of Directors of the Portsmouth Chamber of Comanerce, in which a recommendation of the Roads and Highways Committee of the Chamber of Co~merce calling for construction of an ~uderpass, either a tuvo-lane underpass, or a two-lane underpass with addi- tional east and ~est surface lanes at the Belt Line t racks and High Street, was adopted. It is the steadied opinion o f the Cha~aber of Conumerce that this project is necessary to protrude desired relief at this vital point in the City's traffic system. ~Taile this project has been discussed and recognized as a desired major improvement for malay yea~s, little has been accomplished in its advancement to date. Therefor% it is respectfully re - quested that the Portsmouth City Co~cil re!me early action to effect constrnction of this long-sought project~ As in ~l! matters designed for the betterment of o~ City~ the Chamber of Commerce wishes to be recorded as ready and eager to assist in the advancement of t~is need- ed public improvement. Respectfully submitted, Ray J. D~uun, E~uaging-Director. '~ The following letter~ was read: "As you perhaps are aware in 19~2, the Virginia State Legislature enacted legislation authorizing creation of a Tunnel Co~ission. 'Establishment of this Co~is- sion is definite indication that a to~uel will be constru6ted ~_der the southern branch of the Elizabeth ~ver despite any personal feeli~ any of us might have against such a project. In view of this fact, it is essential that those delegated with such responsibility make every effort to see that construction of such a t~el is beneficial to the City in every possible member. As yet~ there has been no definite action by either t~he~ local goverrnnent or our citi- zens in instructing or ad~ising ~the Portsmouth representative on the Tu~_uel non A. Brooks, relative to their thoug~hts in this important matter. Cogniza~ut of the importance of various factors in connection with construction of a tunnel, the Roads and Highways Committee of the Portsmouth ~uamber of Comma~cs studied, and ultimately recon~.ended for approval a proposm~l calling for cons tr~cti on of a di rect tunnel cor~usction between t~his city ~d the City of Norfolk. In the opinion of the Portsmouth Chamber of C~erce, three imoortani considerations must be given i n making any recon~aendations relative to the proposed 1. Firm insistence that the proposed project be a direct t~n_uel cor~nection between this City aud Norfolk. ~. T~t the project be a fo~ls~e t~nn~! affording ~rect co~ection be- tween the cities, ~ud not two-lane ~ar~el as proposed by certain offi- cials of a neighboring ci~. ~. Unquestionably import~t is the location of the entr~ce to t~ proposed t~el, ~ich should be north of Hi~ Street; no f~ther west th~ fin~am or p0ss~bly Washington Street, ~d no further south than 2~orth Street. Prior to adoption of th~se reco~aendations by the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Co~erce~ the ~mmt~em held severam conferences wz~hreo_~sentatz~es land Bartholomew and Asso~mates~ p~ticularly with ~r, Clem Snyder, Field ~epres~nta~ive for this fi~, v~o are in complete agreement with such reco~endations~ Zt has already been adv~csd by officials of a neighboring City that ~ne correction be a hop-sk~p-and-j~ap affair c~ling for a t~el to Berkley ~d then to Nor folk via bri~e. Such ~ ~angement would n~c~ssitate establishment of entr~c~ to the t~el at a ooint wl~ch wo~d result in ~u ~desired by-pass of our bnsinsss Fo~ther~ as s~gested, a fo~a~-!~s t'~=usl will assure adequate fa- cji!ties for the usu~ heax~ flo~ of traffic between the cities, and assu~i~ required facili- ties necessitated by the ~ticipated growth of both Portg~outh ~d No~fo~ in the future. in sub~tting this reco~endati~ to your honored body, it is ad- v~ced that ~!sss the City of Portsmouth adopts this~reco~endation, or smme other definits, practical plan on whi~ w~ are all in accords.it is possible that others mig~mt su~it a ~ro - poma! for a physic~ co~ection between th~ Cmty of Portsmouth and the. City of Norfolk dmsad- vantageous to o~ oom~?~ity. We o~ not afford.to sit idly b~ ~d ps.mt p~esent~tion of a pi~ in which the City of Portsmouth would not rscemvs due recognmtmon ~nd conszderatzon. ~ile this matter is a lo.-range project, it is respectfully sired that the City Coo~cil take early action to fo~ulats a definite progr~ :~ co~ection v~th the proposed t~a~uei, based on above recom~endatio~ for presentation to o-~ representa- tive on the T~nael Co~ission, for his advice and gai~nce. It should be remembered ~at the persor=us! of the ~e! Co~is- sion~ as p~esently org~zsd, includes two member~ from the City of Norfolk; one member fmom the Coo~ty of No~fotk$ one member, ~. Vel. on A. Brooks~ from the City of Portsmouth; with the fifth ~d possibly dsoid~g member, Gensr~ Jsmes A. ~derson, Chairman ~ the State Hi~mway In su~itting this recommendation to the Port~a~outh City Co~cil~ the Bo~d of Directors of the Po~outh Ch~er of Commerce desires to be recorded as ready to lend every assistance in the advancement o f this needed co~sction between the cities of Portsmouth ~d Norfolk~ as in the best interest ~ o~ Ci~. Your ~m~ber of Commerce ~I! be pleased to co~er ~m representa- tives of the City Goverr~ent at ~y arranged Rsspectf~iy su~itted, ~gotion of ~. Howard to refer B. Ferguson~ President C. Allen,Chairman Roads and m~hways Co~mittee. to a co~mmittee consisting of the ~ayorJ