The McDonnell administration omitted critical information from its presentation last summer when seeking the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s approval to fund the controversial Charlottesville bypass.
by James A. Bacon
On July 20 James Utterback, the Culpeper District administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation, had the job of briefing the Commonwealth Transportation Board about the controversial Charlottesville Bypass. Flashing PowerPoint slides upon an overhead screen, he walked board members through the complexities of a project that had languished on the books for most of 20 years until the McDonnell administration had assigned it a top priority.
- The official cost estimate for the Charlottesville Bypass. (Click on chart for more legible image.)
Utterback summarized the long, tortured history of the project. He described how the 6-mile bypass would fit into the state’s long-range plans for U.S. 29 as a major highway for the movement of freight. He delved into a chart showing that the project would require $197.4 million to complete, including $118 million for construction plus millions for right-of-way acquisition and engineering, bringing the total cost to $244 million. (Click on image above for details.) And he displayed a rendering of the U.S. 29 corridor north of Charlottesville in which the bypass tied into U.S. 29 and U.S. 250 with interchange ramps.
After a lengthy public hearing in which dozens of Charlottesville residents and even a few from Lynchburg had driven to Richmond to let the board know what they thought, the CTB overwhelmingly approved the project.
As it turns out, there were some very important things that Utterback did not mention in his scripted presentation. He did not tell the CTB, for instance, that central office engineers inside the Virginia Department of Transportation thought that construction could cost $100 million or more than the official estimate. He neglected to say that VDOT engineers were considering significant changes to the highway design to bring the cost down. Finally, he failed to mention that VDOT would not build the project using a “design-bid-build” process, doing the final design in-house as was customary, but as a “design-build,” which meant contracting out the final design to the winning construction team.
In other words, the McDonnell administration omitted highly germane information — that the design and cost estimates of the project were uncertain and in flux — when it asked the CTB to approve the $197 million allocation.
Would it have changed the outcome if VDOT had told the complete story about the cost and design uncertainties? One can only speculate. But it certainly would have strengthened the case of the bypass skeptics. At the very least, asks Dennis Rooker, an Albemarle County supervisor who played a leading role in opposing the bypass, “Wouldn’t it have been more honest to go to the CTB and say, ‘Here are our internal cost estimates, and we’re going to try to bring it in at a lower cost?’”
James E. Rich, Culpeper district representative to the CTB, had even stronger words. “Deliberately providing incomplete information would prevent the board from fulfilling its statutory responsibilities to the commonwealth and to taxpayers.” If the omissions were shown to be deliberate, he said, “there should be consequences.”
VDOT’s internal discussions were laid bare in documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Charlottesville Albemarle Transportation Coalition, a self-described “local citizens group.” The organization works closely with, but is not formally affiliated with, the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Southern Environmental Law Center, which have actively opposed the bypass. (Full disclosure: The PEC sponsors Bacon’s Rebellion’s coverage of transportation and land use issues but keeps an arm’s-length distance from our reporting.) The treasure trove of emails and other documents sheds light on project uncertainties and risks that Gov. Bob McDonnell’s transportation team did not discuss publicly until after the project was a done deal.
Roughly one month ago, Bacon’s Rebellion submitted a list of detailed questions to VDOT seeking to clarify or confirm points arising from the documents and to solicit any additional information that would place the department’s actions in context. Lou Hatter, public affairs manager for the Culpeper district, replied that Commissioner Gregory A. Whirley had already addressed those questions when he spoke about the Charlottesville Bypass at the Commonwealth Transportation Board meeting on September 21 and when I interviewed him shortly afterwards. Said Hatter: “The information Mr. Whirley provided stands as the Department’s response to your questions.”
Two days before publication, Bacon’s Rebellion submitted relevant passages of this article to show the case we were making and the documentation behind it, offering VDOT one more chance to respond. Hatter thanked me for the communication but declined to comment. Continue reading.
The Albermerle Board of Supervisors stands for election next Tuesday. According to Jim Bacon’s expose I’d expect most of the incumbents to be thrown out for their obvious stupidity and recalcitrance regarding the bypass.
Somehow, I doubt that will happen.
Instead, I think the voters will say, “Better to have a bypass now than some daffy Places29 plan 20 years from now.”.
I guess we’ll see in less than a week.
Great job and a great read. You neglected to point out that if the eminent domain constitutional amendment is approved by the voters in 11/2012, the cost of this and every VDOT project has the potential of increasing in cost by 30%-40% and VDOT is not allowed to say that. But, hey. That’s the price of doing business with the public’s money. Bosun
moral of the story – VDOT still cannot be trusted to do an open, honest and legitimate public process for controversial roads.
same old. same old VDOT. they can’t keep themselves from lying and dissing the public… with their arrogant behavior – and it’s not McDonnell- their behavior spans all Governors.
They’ve got an early 2012 timeframe to move forward.
I’d suggest a call to FHWA in Richmond because last I heard, FHWA is requiring a NEPA study and those things DO REQUIRE telling the public the truth – and the public has powerful options if the NEPA doc lies.
Groveton will blame such delays on the opponents but I’d say that VDOT owes the public the truth and their treatment of Jim Bacon demonstrates that they have no respect for the public including Mr. Bacon.
NEPA also requires looking at different location and design scenarios but leaves the decision of the VDOT.
In other words NEPA requires the “hard look” and VDOT is free to ignore the info and choose something different – but the difference is – that the public knows what VDOT is doing and NEPA requires that disclosure.
so someone should contact FHWA and ask them what the timeframe is for the NEPA study.
Bosun has a good point. If that amendment is passed, (depending on the language) it is going to affect everything from VDOT to local government building a library. I wonder if we should ask for a cost/benefit study statewide and look at it from both the government and private property owners standpoint?
perhaps…. but neither VDOT nor localities should be able to acquire properties on the cheap and people’s properties already get chopped up by partial takings and the prices, in my view, often do not reflect the change in value to the part not acquired.
private entities can and do make offers for the whole property and then sell off the remainder or develop it but the way the state does businesses on ED is to essentially force the process of taking only what is needed and low-balling the price and treating the remainder property as if it has not changed in value. It’s a nasty process that encourage/obligates the state to screw the property owner and the result is more and more opposition to ED …making it harder and harder for legitimate and needed acquisitions.
the state should adopt as much as it can – a willing seller – willing buyer approach and buy entire parcels then dispose of the remainder through a process for selling excess state properties.
we do ED on the cheap but longer term – the costs are higher.
Pingback: What’s McDonnell Up To With Transportation Policy? | Bacon's Rebellion