Archived Story

Chesapeake Bypass doesn’t get funding from state TRAC

Published 10:29am Friday, July 26, 2013

CHESAPEAKE — The state’s Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) has rejected funding for the long-awaited Chesapeake Bypass.

On Thursday the TRAC approved Gov. John Kasich’s $3 billion transportation plan. Included in the plan is the $440 million Portsmouth Bypass, but not the Chesapeake project.

For decades Lawrence County economic development officials have pushed to construct a bypass in the Chesapeake area to connect with the existing Proctorville Bypass creating a Tri-State Connector.

County officials had sought from the TRAC this time about $79 million to acquire right of way and construct the highway.

“Naturally I am very disappointed the TRAC chose not to provide any funding at all for the project, especially in light of how close we are to a complete design and the need to buy real estate,” Lawrence County Engineer Doug Cade said. “Sacrifices were made to make it a smaller project from a four-lane to a two-lane project.”

A factor in the TRAC’s decision is that there is not enough local funding for the project, Cade said.

“They want us to put money in, but we don’t have the money because we are a rural county,” Cade said. “(Lawrence County) shares our population with the Tri-State. Our traffic is shared across state lines. It isn’t a project that just benefits Lawrence County, but the whole Tri-State.”

TRAC member and executive director of Lawrence Economic Development Corporation Dr. Bill Dingus said the decision revolved around the lack of overall funding.

“Everyone concurs it is a great project but there are not the funds,” he said. “Portsmouth Bypass is through innovative financing. It is coming out of ARC (Appalachian Regional Commission) that has been set aside. It was part of the old Appalachian Development Highway System. Chesapeake was not part of that. Portsmouth being part of the ADHS it receives the federal funds. The Chesapeake Bypass is considered in relation to other projects in the state.”

The Tribune believes it is possible for people with a variety of points of view to discuss issues in a civil manner and will remove comments that, in our opinion, foster incivility. We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. By contributing to this website, you agree not to post any defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, sexual, threatening or illegal material, or any other material that infringes on the ability of others to enjoy this site, or that infringes on the rights of others. Any user who feels that a contribution to this website is a violation of these terms of use is encouraged to email report-comments@irontontribune.com, or click the "report comment" link that is on all comments. We reserve the right to remove messages that violate these terms of use and we will make every effort to do so — within a reasonable time frame — if we determine that removal is necessary.

  • Poor Richard

    I don’t concur that it’s a great project, in fact, I think it is ridiculous to continue to fund projects that benefit WV more than they help Ohio.

    Lawrence County has no comprehensive land-use plan in place so any further development, like the haphazard disaster already in the Proctorville area, would be expanded even further making it even more difficult for future elected officials that want to make the county more livable and enjoyable than wrecking it with junk development everywhere. And who the heck needs anymore out of state traffic over here?? KY has by far, created a mega mess during workday commute.

    Planning is everything and attaching yet another bridge to WV or KY is just about as stupid as it gets. This is Ohio, we are Ohioans, we should be thinking local, not Tri-State, if you want to send all of Ohio’s business over to WV or KY maybe you local officials should move over there instead of buying up land in the path of the by-pass to serve your own agenda.

    (Report comment)

Editor's Picks