Tag Archives: Charlottesville Bypass

Trucks on I-64 at Afton Mountain struggle to maintain posted speeds on a grade that is half as steep as a short slope at the southern terminus of the proposed Charlottesville Bypass. How fast can trucks drive when starting from a dead stop at a traffic signal?

by James A. Bacon

Spending roughly $240 million to build the Charlottesville Bypass will save motorists less than one minute of travel time compared to driving on U.S. 29, according to a new analysis by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition (CATCO).

The installation of synchronized stoplights in 2007 has cut travel time on the congested stretch of stoplight-infested highway by 30% to  50%, and traffic volumes have increased less than predicted by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) when the Bypass was originally proposed 20 years ago. At the same time, design changes to the Bypass made by winning contract bidder Skanska/Branch have diminished the performance of the highway, creating the potential for significant slowdowns at its southern terminus.

While some might dismiss the CATCO analysis as the work of a group that has long opposed the Bypass, it is the only travel-time analysis that anyone has conducted on the basis of published roadway design specifications. As the report notes, “VDOT has  never publicly released any travel time information regarding the proposed Rt. 29 Bypass.”

Lead author Bob Humphris is a retired University of Virginia civil engineer professor. Having followed the Bypass controversy for 20 years, he has amassed the largest collection of Bypass-related documents anywhere outside VDOT. Last year he exposed the fact that the redesigned southern terminus would create safety problems (see “A Bypass Built for Trucks… that Trucks Won’t Use“). The Virginia Trucking Association subsequently confirmed that the safety issues he raised were valid, although the association still supports the project.

The preliminary Skanska/Branch design, which still may be modified under the design-build contract with VDOT, reduces travel time savings compared to the original VDOT design that was deemed too expensive. North-bound traffic from the U.S. 250 Bypass must detour onto a ramp and the local street system (Leonard Sandridge Road), which includes two stoplights, an 11.4% grade for a distance of 162 feet, and a 4.3% grade for 500 feet before entering the Bypass. States the report:

The CATCO-calculated travel time, using posted and estimated speeds for various segments, for the north-bound 6.56 mile Skanska design WITH the proposed Bypass is 8.26 minutes, and the calculated time for the 6.18 mile present route WITHOUT the Bypass is 9.11 minutes.

The CATCO calculation of a 51-second time savings comes with an important caveat. It represents an “ideal situation” in which traffic flows at the posted speed. In point of fact, even with synchronized lights, travel times frequently fall beneath posted speeds on the congested U.S. 29 business corridor. But Bypass travel times will fall short, too. North-bound tractor-trailers will encounter two stoplights at steep grades and, depending upon traffic conditions, could require multiple signalling cycles to get through.

Bypass foes have argued that for roughly the same price as building the Bypass, VDOT could make major improvements along the existing U.S. 29 that would alleviate more congestion and improve travel times for local traffic as well as for pass-through traffic. Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker also has been promoting the deployment of more advanced signalization controls on U.S. 29, such as those used successfully in a pilot project on U.S. 250 at Pantops Mountain.

Bacon’s bottom line: If the CATCO calculation is accurate, it would prove devastating to the economic case for the Bypass. The McDonnell administration has justified the project largely on the grounds that U.S. 29 is a corridor of statewide significance critical to the inter-regional movement of trucks. Likewise, the business communities of Lynchburg and Danville have supported the project thinking that it will make local manufacturers more competitive. But the notion that shaving 51 seconds off a five- to 10-hour trip to Northeastern markets would provide a measurable economic boost to Southside manufacturers is hard to maintain. That time savings would quickly be swamped by the ongoing encroachment of cut-throughs and stoplights along the length of the U.S. 29 corridor.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t the only federal agency that would like to see a comprehensive environmental reevaluation of the Charlottesville Bypass. The Army Corps of Engineers contends that previous environmental studies, conducted in 1990 and 2002, may be outdated and do not fully explore alternatives to the bypass.

The Norfolk District of the Army Corps claims jurisdiction over 2.8 acres of wetlands and 7,040 linear feet of streams impacted by the proposed U.S. 29 bypass north of Charlottesville. In a Nov. 9 letter to state and federal highway officials, William T. Walker, chief-regulatory branch, said the state’s Environmental Assessment (EA), an update of previous environmental studies, is “insufficient” for the Corps to make a Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative (LEDPA) determination.

The letter enumerated upon several concerns, including the Virginia Department of Transportation’s use of possibly flawed traffic data as well as the use of information that is between 10 and 20 years old in analyzing less environmentally damaging alternatives to the proposed 6.3-mile bypass. Walker specifically noted the “Places 29” plan developed in the 2000s, which proposed improving traffic flow on U.S. 29 by building two grade-separated interchanges, upgrading two parallel roads, and making other spot improvements.

Combinations of some or all of the components of these effort should be evaluated as stand-alone alternatives to the [bypass]. In light of the fact that these alternatives appear to have less environmental impact than the [bypass], all of these factors need to be thoroughly and carefully evaluated, in comparison with the [bypass].

Walker said a new environmental impact statement was needed “to address all the issues raised in this letter, as well as those raised by others … and to provide an up-to-date alternatives analysis….”

The Army Corp’s opinion matters because design-build contractor Skanska-Branch must obtain permits for impacts to stream crossings, wetlands and other places where waterways would be affected.

Undercutting the thrust of his message, however, Walker apologized for missing the deadline for filing his comments, due Oct. 19 in response to VDOT’s environmental assessment. He blamed workload, belated notification that the assessment was available for review and “the complexity of matters at hand.”

— JAB

Conceptual design of Charlottesville Bypass southern terminus. Graphic credit: Bob Humphris.

Virginia trucking companies are concerned that a new design of the Charlottesville Bypass would create safety issues, says Dale Bennett, executive director of the Virginia Trucking Association (VTA), but he doesn’t know of any company that would avoid using the Bypass. And he stands by the association’s long-stated support for the $244 million project.

In a written response to questions submitted by Bacon’s Rebellion, Bennett confirmed some claims leveled by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition (CATCO) about deficiencies in the design of the Bypass’ southern terminus but disputed others.

As described in “A Bypass Built for Trucks… that Trucks Won’t Use,” Bob Humphris, author of the CATCO report, documented how a conceptual design submitted by winning design-build contractor Skanska-Branch shaved millions of dollars from costs where the proposed bypass joins the U.S 250 Bypass. Northbound trucks using the Bypass would encounter a tight turning radius, two stoplights and extremely steep grades. South-bound trucks exiting east would face stoplights at the bottom of a very steep grade, which could pose problems in bad weather. The Virginia Department of Transportation’s original design had connected the terminus with the U.S. 250 Bypass with longer, free-flowing ramps that avoided stoplights.

“From a safety point of view [the design] doesn’t make sense,” agreed Bennett. Nobody at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) or Skanska/Branch asked the association what it thought about the new, money-saving approach.

Bennett quoted a senior executive of a trucking company in the Lynchburg area: “I think the gentleman (Humphris) is correct in stating that a 4.7% and 11.36% grade for trucks plus stop lights will be challenging for loaded trucks and trailers.”

Added Bennett: “Our organization would certainly not advocate ignoring identified and documented safety concerns in the design and construction of any project. We believe that VDOT has a responsibility to ensure that safety issues are properly addressed in projects.”

Ironically, the VTA supports the bypass mainly for reasons of safety, with time savings a “secondary but valid” consideration. Wrote Bennett:

Traffic congested areas pose increased risks for crashes.  The numerous retail accesses, stoplights and center turn lanes on current Route 29 pose a particular challenge for commercial trucks and other large vehicles having to interact with passenger vehicles.  Eliminating the traffic signals and other hazards will improve safety and reducing the risk of crashes along the corridor by allowing through trucks and cars to avoid having to interact with local traffic.

However, in talking to executives with trucking associations cited by Humphris, Bennett could not find any who said they would avoid using the Bypass. In his report, Humphris stated that he had talked to four local trucking companies and had been told that heavy trucks (70,000 pounds or more) would likely avoid the bypass.

Humphris stood by his analysis, sharing with Bacon’s Rebellion the notes he made from his interviews a couple of months ago. Estes Express Lines, none of whose loads exceeded 35,000-40,000 pounds, would not have a problem. UPS, which also uses lighter trucks, also said the design would not pose an issue, other than noting that it “wouldn’t want to [use the bypass] in bad weather.”

The operations manager of Lawrence Transportation Systems, which hauls heavy loads of paper, often more than 80,000 pounds, saw lots of problems with the terminus, saying that the company “would not use the Bypass much.” Likewise, a manager for Wilson Trucking said the terminus “is going to cause problems for trucking. ” Humphris’ notes say, “We have big loads — probably not use.”

Bennett’s source at Wilson Trucking could not find anyone with the firm who recalled being contacted about the issue. His source for Lawrence Transportation, the vice president of human resources and safety, offers a different recollection of the conversation with Humphris:

Our manager in Waynesboro did recall speaking to someone a few months ago about the 29 By-Pass. He said they discussed the percentage of grade and two stoplights to enter the highway but he never stated that our trucks would not use the By-Pass. He felt those issues were not particularly significant and the stoplights more a nuisance and simply questioned why stoplights rather than an entry ramp. Our people in Waynesboro support a 29 By-Pass around Charlottesville.

Despite the newly surfaced safety concerns, the association remains firm in its commitment to the Bypass. Says Bennett: “Charlottesville is the largest major population center in the Route 29 corridor without a Bypass so it should be a top priority.”

Dear Governor McDonnell,

I know you’re a busy man. You oversee the entire breadth and scope of state government. You don’t have time to get involved in every local controversy. But every once in a while, if you don’t step in to correct a bad decision, you can wind up with a big mess on your hands.

The Charlottesville Bypass is turning into a Big Mess. Your administration has committed $244 million to build a 6.5-mile highway to bypass one of the more congested stretches of U.S. 29. You made the project a priority in order to preserve the integrity of U.S. 29, a Corridor of Statewide Significance, which Lynchburg, Danville and other communities regard as an economic lifeline for their manufacturing-based economies. That makes sense. You are “the jobs governor,” after all, and Lynchburg and Danville need good highway connections to stay economically competitive.

But there’s a lot about that project that you don’t know (unless you read Bacon’s Rebellion faithfully).

You probably don’t know, for example, that the magnitude of the traffic congestion is greatly exaggerated. Thanks to a modest investment in traffic light sequencing, the Virginia Department of Transportation has greatly improved travel times through the congested area north of Charlottesville. Trucks and cars using the Bypass (as originally designed) could expect to save only three minutes or so of travel time. The rush hour “congestion” in Albemarle County would be considered ideal driving conditions in Northern Virginia. Go visit sometime. See for yourself.

You probably don’t know that the original $244 million cost estimate of the project was gravely flawed and that there was considerable disagreement inside VDOT on what the final cost would be. You probably don’t know that the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the project without hearing these concerns. And you probably don’t know that VDOT managed to bring the project within the cost parameters approved by the CTB only by accepting radically different designs for the bypass’ northern and southern termini.

You probably don’t know that the winning design/build contractor, Skanska/Branch, submitted a lower bid than other competitors by introducing design changes that would seriously limit the Bypass’ usefulness for heavy trucks. The configuration of the southern terminus is so flawed that three trucking companies have said they would not even use it for north-bound traffic. Moreover, the configuration would create a safety hazard for south-bound traffic in bad weather. By accepting the design changes, VDOT has undermined the entire justification for building the Bypass in the first place!

Finally, you probably don’t know that Charlottesville and Albemarle County were far advanced in developing an alternative to the Bypass before you resurrected the project. For a comparable sum of money, the Places 29 plan would build interchanges at the busiest intersections of U.S. 29, extend parallel roads to siphon off traffic and make other spot improvements. These changes would benefit everyone who uses the U.S. 29, not just those who seek to drive through Charlottesville on the way to somewhere else, creating a much bigger bang for the buck.

If you knew in early 2011 what you should know now, I suspect you never would have made the decision to fund the Bypass. But the project kept chugging along and information dribbled out so slowly that there was never an “aha” moment that would prompt you to change your mind. Until now. The “aha” moment is the revelation that trucking companies won’t use the Bypass for north-bound trips.

Don’t believe me. Don’t believe the Charlottesville Albemarle Transportation Coalition (CATCO), the citizens’ group that took the trouble to show the plans to local trucking operations and ask what they thought. Don’t even believe the local trucking managers to whom CATCO talked. Just make a single call to the Virginia Trucking Association. I’m sure they’d be happy to get their people to look at the current design and give you an authoritative opinion.

Just one little phone call, that’s all it takes. Don’t let the Bypass go down in history as “McDonnell’s Folly.”

— James A. Bacon

by James A. Bacon

The McDonnell administration’s justification for the $244 million Charlottesville Bypass is to preserve the integrity of U.S. 29 for freight traffic. Only one problem: Heavy trucks traveling north won’t be able to use it, according to an analysis published by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition.

This cross-section shows the varying grades of the bottleneck at the Charlottesville Bypass’s southern terminus. Note: Height and distance measures are on different scales. Graphic credit: CATCO.

What’s more, the bypass will be unusable for some southbound trucks in snow, ice and perhaps even rain, says author Bob Humphris, a retired University of Virginia engineer who interviewed four trucking companies for the white paper, “A Tale of Two Roads.”

The crux of the problem is that the winner of the design-build contract, Skanska/Branch, made major changes to the original Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) design in order to shave costs, submit the low bid and bring the project under the $244 million set aside by the state. Skanska’s conceptual design shrank the footprint of the southern terminus, where the bypass ties into the U.S. 250 Bypass, eliminating the need to build three bridges and shortening the length of the on-off ramps. Those changes, says Humphris, reduced costs by $20 million or more.

But Skanska created problems with the new design. North-bound trucks serving manufacturing operations in Lynchburg, Danville and elsewhere would exit U.S. 250 onto a ramp onto Leonard Sandridge Road, which is classified as a Local Street System road, and encounter a stoplight. Then they would turn left and encounter another stoplight before entering the bypass.

VDOT recommends the addition of truck-climbing lanes for this stretch of Interstate 64 near Afton Mountain. The incline has half the slope of the steepest grade at the proposed southern terminus of the Charlottesville Bypass. Photo credit: News Virginian.

Humphris showed the plans to four trucking operations: UPS in Charlottesville, and to Estes Express, Lawrence Transportation System and Wilson Trucking in the Waynesboro-Fishersville area. None of these companies were aware of the new design, he says. UPS said that its light trucks would not be affected. But the other three told him that the operation of heavy trucks would be so impaired that they would route the trucks elsewhere.

Northbound trucks would encounter two problems. First, they could not make the tight left turn at the first stoplight unless they were in the right-hand land, and they would create a safety hazard by cutting off cars in the left-hand lane. Second, the incline after the first stoplight is exceedingly steep, with a grade of 11.36% — roughly twice the grade of the Interstate highway up nearby Afton Mountain, where truck speeds routinely fall below the posted speed limit.

Wrote Humphris: “Starting from a stopped position and trying to accelerate up the 162 [feet] of an 11.36% grade, and then another 163 [feet] of a 4.26% grade to the second stoplight takes a considerably longer time compared to automobiles — and quite likely two cycles of the stoplights would be required.”

The same steep incline would pose a hazard for south-bound heavy trucks in inclement driving conditions. “Bad, icy weather would be horrendous coming down that grade,” Humphris says.

Someone needs to inform the Danville and Lynchburg Chambers of Commerce, which lobbied heavily for the bypass project as a lifeline for their manufacturing-intensive economies, Humphris says. “To come off a highway of national significance onto the local street system defeats the purpose of the whole thing.”

Another set of problems arises from the re-design of the southern terminus, which arguably breaks an understanding reached in the 1990s with the University of Virginia by encroaching upon UVa’s northern grounds. University officials asked then that “every possible aesthetic measure [be] taken to preserve and enhance the University’s considerable investment in the setting and appearance of its new Darden School of Business and the Law School, including visual buffering … as well as acoustic buffering using sound walls faced with materials compatible with those historically in use at the university.”

Randy Salzman, a transportation writer who has closely tracked the U.S. 29 Bypass procurement process, says that the landscaping and acoustic buffering are missing from Skanska’s conceptual design — another trick the contractor used to trim costs from its bid. “Once construction begins,” he writes, “there must be major change orders.”

In correspondence to a UVa professor, he continues:

Skanska and bypass promoters realize that Darden and UVA will demand changes, which University Architect David Neuman has already begun, and the price will climb. The American Trucking Association will demand changes and the price will climb. Similar issues will likely show up in other sections of the 6.2 mile highway and the price will climb again.

All when the media and the public are no longer paying attention.

Bacon’s Rebellion tried contacting three different VDOT spokesmen for a comment Thursday, two in the Culpeper office and one in the Richmond office, but did not get a response.

Building a highway over the mountain: Solving one problem creates another.

by James A. Bacon

An Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Charlottesville Bypass prepared by the state and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is based on an outdated highway design, uses a deeply flawed traffic model and fails to consider transportation alternatives, charges the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) in a formal response to the assessment.

Having failed to halt the Charlottesville Bypass at the level of state, regional and state government, the SELC and its allies are taking their case to the feds, who must review the EA before granting final approval for the federally funded project. The 6.5-mile bypass would circumvent a congested stretch of U.S. 29 north of Charlottesville and a cost of roughly $245 million.

“I don’t think the FHWA has the information it needs to made a decision,” says Morgan Butler, SELC senior attorney. When asked what outcome he hoped to get from the federal review, he said: “The FHWA could say, ‘We want [the Virginia Department of Transportation] to go back and take a closer look.”

By contrast, bypass supporters find the environmental assessment “a very defensible document,” in the words of Neil Williamson, president of the Free Enterprise Forum in Charlottesville. “VDOT is moving fairly, methodically and carefully,” he says. The EA addressed important issues such as the noise impact not considered in the original Environmental Impact Statement.

Barring a rejection of the EA by federal authorities or the filing of a lawsuit, construction of the bypass is scheduled to begin November 2013.

Outdated design. The SELC argues that the environmental assessment is based upon a conceptual VDOT bypass design that differs in important respects from the design submitted by winning bidder Skanksa/Branch. Of particular concern is the configuration of the southern terminus connecting to the U.S. 250 Bypass.

The original VDOT design anticipated a grade of 4% as the highway crossed over Stillhouse Mountain near the southern terminus. Skanska/Branch increased the elevation of the bypass in order to reduce the significant cost of blasting and removing rock. But that would create a new  problem: Cars and trucks entering the bypass from the south would encounter an extremely steep grade — 11.26%, or more than twice the average grade of Interstate 64 as it climbs Afton Mountain. Trucks struggling to accelerate up that grade could block traffic and reduce the desired level of service.

Additionally, noted the SELC critique, one of the other bidders, American Infrastructure, had filed a protest against the awarding of the contract to Skanska/Branch on the grounds that the southern terminus design was deficient. “American Infrastructure noted that the traffic lights included in the design would likely cause long queues that would impede flow on the eastbound 250 Bypass during special events on the University’s North Grounds.”

Flawed traffic analysis. Citing an analysis it contracted from Smart Mobility Inc., the SELC contends that the VDOT traffic projections contain a major methodological error: treating growth of “external” traffic (originating outside the Metropolitan Planning Office boundaries) as “through” trips, meaning that all such vehicles will travel through the region to destinations outside the region. However, some of those trips will be, in fact, to destinations in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The model projects that the percentage of “through” trips on U.S. 29 will jump from 13.5% in 2010 to 51% in 2040, thus inflating traffic counts and the putative benefits of the bypass.

No look at alternatives. VDOT never gave serious consideration to bypass alternatives, SELC argues. Installing grade-separated interchanges at the two busiest intersections, Hydraulic Road and Rio Road, would achieve greater delay reductions than the bypass — and it would benefit everyone using the 29 corridor, not just people passing through the region. Building the two interchanges also would cost less.

Representing much of the Charlottesville business community, the Free Enterprise Institute has long supported the bypass. In comments submitted to the FHWA, Neil Williamson minimized the changes that have taken place since the original Environmental Impact Statement was completed two decades ago. “Even though some of the areas on US29 North have been rezoned and/or developed since 1995, these areas have been designated for high density growth since at least the 1984 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This designation was factored in when the original route was developed.”

The EA was correct in stating that the bypass would divert up to 28% of U.S. 29 traffic to the bypass by 2o4o, the Institute wrote. “The project will result in significant improvement in traffic flow on the new Business 29.”

Click map for larger image.

Construction has not yet begun on  Charlottesville’s Western Bypass but the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization outlined yesterday an idea for building an 8.3-mile extension of the bypass for possible inclusion in the region’s long-range transportation plan.

Using standard unit costs without the benefit of engineering studies, the commission estimates that the project would cost $132 million. That number includes 20-year maintenance costs. (Sean Tubbs provides details of the presentation in  Charlottesville Tomorrow.)

The extension would run parallel U.S. 29 in rough alignment with the existing Dickerson Road. The project would include improvements to the pavement and alignment of Dickerson Road to allow for higher traffic volumes and speed. Two bridges would also have to be upgraded and two interchanges constructed.

A written MPO description of the project estimates that it would generate 522 million Person Miles Traveled over a 20-year period at a cost of $0.25 per person mile. That compares to a cost of $0.03 per Person Mile Traveled for a proposal to revamp three miles of U.S. 29 from a highway into more of an urban boulevard. That $45.6 million project would affect 1,439 million Person Miles Traveled.

The boulevard concept would decrease the number of automobile lanes while repurposing two lanes as Bus Rapid Transit bus lanes. Other costs would include adding curb and gutter, planting landscaping, and installing a 10-foot-wide bike/pedestrian lane along with pedestrian crossings at each intersection.

Whether any of these projects have a prayer of finding funding is another issue. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) forecasts say the department will run out of state funds for new construction projects by 2017. Speaking at the MPO hearing, Jeff Werner, a land-use field officer with the Piedmont Environmental Council, predicted that none of the MPO ideas would get money because the Western Bypass had soaked up the region’s funding. “You’re going to get the money for this road and then you’re going to get nothing else.”

Bacon’s bottom line: The Western Bypass will cost more than $200 million to build. Everyone knew that it would bypass only a portion of the congestion along U.S. 29 and that an extension probably would be necessary. Now we have a rough price tag to finish the project: $132 million.

The most interesting thing to me about the MPO’s six proposals — which also included widening of U.S. 250 at two locations, a Berkmar Drive extension and an eastern connector — were the metrics used to compare projects. When toting up total costs, the MPO included projected 20 years of maintenance. Good move. We need to compare full life-cycle costs of projects, not just up-front construction costs.

Also, the MPO projected total Persons Mile Traveled over 20 years to derive a cost per person-mile of funding each project. The cost per person-mile varied enormously, from $0.03 for the Rt. 29 Boulevard concept to $0.69 for the Berkmar Drive extension.

While useful, the Persons Mile Traveled metric is incomplete. It doesn’t tell us much about how much added capacity we’re getting from these investment. For instance, the U.S. 29 Boulevard concept would reduce the number of lanes and traffic speeds for automobiles. Would the addition of Bus Rapid Transit make up the difference? That’s unclear. How much would BRT cost per person-mile? That information is not included.

For all its limitations, the metric gets us closer to being able to compare the costs and benefits of different projects for the purpose of setting priorities.

 — JAB

Let me set the scene… The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has allocated $200 million to build the Charlottesville Bypass and has selected a contractor to move the project forward. Before construction can commence, the state must submit an Environmental Assessment (EA) for final approval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). But the bypass design included in the review is an outdated VDOT schematic. The most recent conceptual design, prepared by Skanska/Branch Highway in its winning bid, differs in several particulars, most notably the configuration of the southern terminus, where the bypass ties into the U.S. 250 bypass.

Question: Is it possible to conduct a  meaningful Environmental Assessment on the basis of a highway design that everyone knows will not be used?

VDOT says it can. States the department’s draft Environmental Assessment:

While certain details of the roadway design may change during the final design process, as they do in any project, and although the nature of such potential changes are not known at this time, the major design features of the project (typical cross-section and corridor location) are not expected to materially change. Nor is the right-of way footprint upon which previous environmental analyses were based expected to change. Therefore, the design upon which the SEIS was based best represents the current project design, and its associated right-of-way footprint best represents the direct impacts footprint of the proposed project, and environmental impacts have been computed accordingly.

But the Southern Environmental Law Center isn’t so sure. Senior Attorney Morgan Butler is especially concerned about Skanska’s radical re-design of the bypass’ southern terminus. Some traffic entering and leaving the bypass could encounter two stoplights. Northbound traffic also would drive up a steep grade immediately upon passing the stoplight, creating a situation in which slow-moving trucks block traffic.

Butler also is concerned how the intersection will handle special events traffic coming out of the University of Virginia. “People have done traffic analysis and … are raising technical points, whether Skanska’s design meets the [Level of Service]  required in the RFP,” he says. … “Is this design for the southern terminus workable, or will it lead to more problems?”

VDOT has posted the Environmental Assessment online (you can find it here) and is collecting public input. The EA will be submitted to the FHWA for approval. If FHWA gives the nod — the final step in the years-long approval process — VDOT will schedule an “citizen information meeting” to brief the public on the conceptual design, explains Lou Hatter, VDOT spokesman with the Culpeper District office. Then the department will hold a full-fledged public hearing in which the public can comment on the design. With the benefit of that input, Skanska will commence final design and construction.

“It appears that their strategy is to separate the [Environmental Assessment] and the design,” says Butler. “There will be significant design changes [between the VDOT version and the Skanska version]. Those changes will have environmental impacts and community impacts. … It seems like they’re trying to defer any serious public feedback on the design changes until after the [environmental review] process.”

Yup, that’s what it looks like. In other words, the Charlottesville Bypass is a done deal. All citizens can do now is to influence the project on the margins…. No, they can’t even influence the margins. They can influence the periphery of the margins. No, make that the edge of the periphery of the margins. I sure hope that Bypass designed works out like planned.

— JAB

Graphic credit: Piedmont Environmental Council

Is the McDonnell administration serious about protecting state highways from encroaching development? A dispute over a rural stoplight on U.S. 29 may tell the story.

by James A. Bacon

If you want to know how serious Virginia is about preserving the integrity of its major highways from development pressures, pay close attention to an obscure residential real estate project in Greene County.

In February the Greene County Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning for Creekside, a 400-acre residential development, with the condition that the developer build a $1.6 million connector road to U.S. 29 and a stoplight at the intersection. That stoplight would be located only a half mile from an existing light, reducing the speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 on that stretch of road and adding another slowdown on a highway officially designated a “corridor of statewide significance.”

Before the stoplight can be installed, however, the developer, the Fried Companies, must pay for a “warrant study” to determine if the signalized intersection is justified. After the study is published, the final decision to approve the signal will rest with the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Culpeper district administrator.

The ruling is bound to be controversial, no matter what the outcome. The issue of access management is highly sensitive along U.S. 29 north of Charlottesville. Individual decisions like the Greene County stop light may seem small but over the years they have added up, rendering U.S. 29 increasingly unfit as an interstate transportation corridor.

The commonwealth of Virginia is sinking roughly $240 million into a controversial Charlottesville bypass, which will circumvent some 14 stoplights in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The McDonnell administration approved financing for the project but admonished local governments to get serious about controlling access to the highway. Virginians should not continue the practices that made that investment necessary, Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton told Bacon’s Rebellion. “The definition of insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”

The proposed stoplight would violate Greene County’s comprehensive plan as well as VDOT’s own access-management guidelines for U.S. 29, observes Brian Higgins, Greene Field Officer for the Piedmont Environmental Council. “It’s an opportunity for VDOT to apply their access management guidelines and show they are serious about it.”

But Ken Lawson, director of special projects for the Fried Companies, says the project has been in the works for years. Failure to approve the stoplight would redirect traffic emanating from Creekside’s 600 single-family homes and 580 town homes to the so-called Sheetz intersection to the north. That intersection, he says, is “failing.” VDOT is scheduled to make a $1.6 million improvement there but the intersection would be overwhelmed by Creekside traffic without a second stop light.

VDOT’s district administrator is in the hot seat. If he approves the stoplight, he adds more plaque to the clogged artery of U.S. 29 and undermines its value as a major commercial corridor. If he rejects the stoplight, he contributes to localized congestion in Greene County. Pressure from local politicians and citizens can be hard to ignore.

A Long Brewing Problem

While the Creekside matter has come into focus only recently, the larger issue of preserving U.S. 29 as a major transportation corridor has been percolating for years. For decades, cities and counties along the highway treated access as a free good, allowing businesses and developers to build along it with little interference. Entrances, cut-throughs and stop-lighted intersections have proliferated without let-up. As long as transportation funds were abundant, the solution to the resulting congestion was building bypasses. Danville, Lynchburg, Charlottesville and Culpeper all have bypasses on U.S. 29. Warrenton has two. Charlottesville is about to build a second, and local politicians foresee the need for a third. Meanwhile, leapfrog development in rural counties like Greene, Madison, Culpeper and Fauquier threatens to gum up the highway in between metropolitan areas.

“Strip development, the proliferation of driveways and traffic signals, and the overloading of traffic on a single roadway are all symptoms of a past approach that has emphasized exploitation rather than management of Central Virginia’s most important north-south transportation corridor,” summed up the Rt. 29 Corridor Study, published in 2009. “This trend cannot be allowed to continue. It’s time to move forward. … Land use and transportation planning should tie together to support the roadway’s functionality.” Read more.

Foes of the Charlottesville Bypass have produced a video detailing six spot improvements that would not only speed travel for drivers passing through town but for the thousands of drivers who use the road for local trips.

“The bypass only offers minimal time savings to drivers passing through the area, and it offers even fewer benefits for local drivers, who make up the vast majority of traffic on 29,” said Butler Morgan Butler, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), in a prepared statement.  “The bypass won’t provide the new connections to work, schools, and stores along the 29 corridor we so desperately need.  We should be pursuing solutions that make the corridor work for those passing through the area and local drivers alike.”

The improvements, which bear strong similarities to proposals included in the Places29 study, include:

• Improving the interchange with the 250 Bypass near Best Buy;
• Building overpasses at Hydraulic Road and Rio Road intersections to allow through-traffic on 29 to flow without stopping;
• Extending parallel roads on Hillsdale Drive and Berkmar Drive to give local drivers alternatives to U.S. 29.
• Widening U.S. 29 north of the Rivanna River to eliminate the bottleneck there.

The video, produced by the SELC and the Piedmont Environmental Council, does not say how much the six improvements would cost. But one estimate dating back several years put the cost around $197 million — somewhat less expensive than the Bypass.

VDOT has not conducted a traffic study of the Bypass in its current configuration but the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition (CATCO) has estimated that it would have served between 6,470 to 10,600 vehicles per day had it been opened in 2010 and that traffic would increase to 8,800 and 14,400 per day by 2022. By contrast, the six improvements highlighted in the video would benefit everyone using U.S. 29, exceeding 40,000 drivers in certain spots, as well as thousands more who use Hydraulic and Rio roads.

The Bypass has an exceedingly high cost per mile — nearly $40 million — because it must acquire substantial right of way and build over rough terrain. Bacon’s Rebellion estimates that the highway would shave two minutes, 40 seconds, on average off a trip during rush hour. SELC/PEC provided no estimate of how much time per trip its proposed improvements would save, but they would eliminate the major bottlenecks that exist today.

The video is effective, so effective that I have but one question. Why didn’t they think of this long ago? It’s late in the game to be pushing a Bypass alternative, but perhaps not too late. The Federal Highway Administration still must complete its Environmental Impact Statement review before construction can begin. Perhaps the existence of plausible alternatives will affect FHWA’s conclusions.

— JAB

Skanska/Branch’s new design for the Charlottesville Bypass shaves tens of millions of dollars off construction costs. But will it move traffic as efficiently as the original design?

by James A. Bacon

Foes of the controversial Charlottesville Bypass could well adopt the famous motto of John Paul Jones when his ship, The Bonhomme Richard, was losing the battle with the HMS Serapis: “I have not yet begun to fight!”

Continued opposition to the Bypass might seem futile now that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has identified Skanska/Branch Highways as the low bidder for constructing the highway and the Commonwealth Transportation Board has given final approval for the allocation of funds. But Bypass foes are not prepared to concede defeat. Indeed, like Jones, who closed with the Serapis to engage in hand-to-hand combat, Charlottesville area activists are poring over Skanska’s conceptual design for the bypass to see if it will deliver as promised.

Meanwhile, VDOT has not yet scheduled an informational hearing to solicit input from the public, the Federal Highway Administration has not yet completed a review of the Environmental Impact Assessment, and VDOT has not yet formally awarded the contract to Skanska. Indeed, according to an email from Culpeper transportation district chief Jim Utterback to Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker, VDOT was not expecting to meet with Skanska until late July. “There are a number of contract items and initial steps moving forward to be reviewed and worked out with them.”

With the goal of influencing the federal EIA findings anti-bypass activists are scrutinizing Skanska’s roadway design, which seemingly solves several issues that would have driven the cost of the project considerably higher than the official $244 million estimate. By reducing the footprint of the southern and northern termini, Skanska’s design saves roughly $36 million in right-of-way acquisition costs. Running the highway at a higher elevation over Stillhouse Mountain also cuts excavation and disposal costs.

But will the new design deliver on the promised travel time savings? after all, the justification of the project is to bypass a congested strip of U.S. 29 north of Charlottesville in order to facilitate inter-city commerce along what the state has designated a “corridor of statewide significance.” The original bypass plans would have supported a 60 mile-per-hour speed limit. Therefore, under normal conditions the trip would take roughly six minutes, 30 seconds, shaving about two minutes and 40 seconds from the average length of each trip on the existing U.S. 29. (See “The Road to Wealth Destruction” to see how the time savings were calculated.)

The new design adds two stoplights and may lower the average travel speed, potentially cutting into the hoped-for time savings. Jeff Werner, transportation and land use planner for the Piedmont Environmental Council, has focused on three key areas: the southern terminus, the elevation over Stillhouse Mountain, and the northern terminus.

Click here for larger image.

Southern terminus. The interchange requires two new stoplights. Northbound traffic will follow the route indicated by the green arrows: exiting U.S. 250 to the right, halting at a stoplight, turning left, crossing U.S. 250 at an 11.4% grade, encountering another stoplight, and then proceeding onto the bypass.

Southbound traffic will have an unobstructed exit from the bypass onto U.S. 250 heading south, but will encounter the same two stoplights when entering Leonard Sandridge Drive leading tothe University of Virginia or heading east to downtown Charlottesville.

The sequencing of the stoplights has not yet been made public. But assuming average cycle times of one minute each and, optimistically, no major back-up during rush hour, it the lights could add a minute or so to northbound trips and some southbound trips.

Stillhouse Mountain. One of the great challenges designing the bypass is crossing Stillhouse Mountain located near the southern terminus. The original plan called for massive rock excavacation and removal in order to keep the grade moderate. Skanska’s engineering solution will reduce excavcation and removal costs by elevating the highway. The incline will be very steep, says Werner.

Roughly one in ten vehicles using the bypass is expected to be a truck. If northbound trucks start from a full stop at the second stoplight, they will labor for hundreds of yards up a steep incline to reach a posted 60 miles-per-hour speed limit. This design change has the potential to add significant travel time for tractor-trailers and the cars caught behind them. Continue reading.

CTB members James Rich (center) and Hollis Ellis (right).

by James A. Bacon

The Commonwealth Transportation Board awarded yesterday a $135 million contract to Skanska/Branch Highways for the design and construction of the Charlottesville Bypass. Board members voted without seeing a conceptual design, asking anything about cost-benefit trade-offs made by Skanska to submit the low bid, or knowing what changes may be required by a yet-to-be-completed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

“We’re buying a pig in the poke here,” said James Rich, Culpeper District representative. “No one has seen the design. No one knows what it does. The environmental document is incomplete.”

Mark Peake

The board bought the logic of Lynchburg District representative Mark Peake, who argued that it was time to stop dilly dallying on a project that has been in the works for more than 20 years. “This has been studied. It’s been approved. … This is the plan. This is as good as we got. This is as good as it’s going to get.”

The outcome was never in doubt, as Rich has been the sole board member to express reservations about the controversial, 6.2-mile bypass. Other board members have deferred to the McDonnell administration, which has made the project one of its top transportation priorities.

The project was billed as costing an estimated $244 million in total engineering, design, construction and right-of-way acquisition costs when the CTB approved it last year. A Freedom of Information Act request by a Charlottesville activist group surfaced the fact that VDOT central-office engineers had identified major flaws in that estimate. By some in-house calculations, the actual cost could run almost double. VDOT subsequently made changes to the conceptual design, elevating one stretch of the road to avoid major excavation costs and simplifying the northern terminus. But the final design would be up to the winning bidder of the design-build contract.

VDOT has not released any information about how Skanska, which submitted the low bid for design and construction, proposes to contain costs. Outside of Skanska and VDOT, no one knows what features Skanska might have sacrificed to keep costs down, much less what impact those decisions might have on safety, speed or carrying capacity.

One element known to be omitted from the bid is landscaping. It is not clear how big that bill will be. Virginia Highway Commissioner Whirley said, “I heard a figure of $1.2 million.” But he also said the amount good go as high as $2.6 million. Another missing element is the cost of building sound barriers to protect schools and residential neighborhoods.

Arguing that “we can’t afford to throw money at a road to nowhere,” Rich proposed scrapping the project, keeping $80 million for Culpeper District projects and redistributing the rest to other districts. Although his motion was seconded for the purpose of advancing the discussion, no one else voted for his proposal. Later, Rich pushed an amendment to defer granting the contract until the Environmental Impact Statement was complete. The motion died for a lack of a second.

At one point during the session, Rich said, “This is a political project to satisfy people in the Lynchburg District.”

Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton objected to that characterization. “This is not a political project. As someone who has lived in the commonwealth for 30 years and has been going down to Charlottesville to see relatives there, I’ve seen how traffic has gotten progressively worse and worse and worse. It’s been politics that has kept it from moving forward.”

Photo credit: The Hook

by James A. Bacon

Last week the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) opened bids for the design and construction of the Charlottesville Bypass, claiming that the low bid of Virginia Beach-based Skanska-Branch/JMT came in beneath the department’s official projection and within the $197 million allocated to the project. However, project foes stated that, based upon the evidence available to them, the low bid appeared to be over the limit. (See previous post.)

Additional information provided by VDOT officials strengthens the case that the Skanska bid did come in below the official estimate. Assuming Skanska meets VDOT’s criteria as a qualified contractor — it has sufficient bonding capacity, it meets disadvantaged enterprise goals, etc. — there appears to be no substantial barrier for the controversial project to proceed.

The total cost of the project, including money spent on engineering and right-of-way, was estimated to be $244.5 million. Of that amount, VDOT had set aside $125.6 million for additional engineering and construction. Skanska’s bid was $136 million, or seemingly $10 million higher. How could VDOT say that the project came under bid?

Because the new project design slashed Right of Way costs, says Jim Utterback, Culpeper district administrator. Instead of spending $71 million to acquire additional ROW, the state will have to spend only $35.4 million — a difference of almost $36 million. The original design called for elaborate flyovers crossing U.S. 29 at the northern terminus. The revised design eliminates the flyovers, sparing the necessity of acquiring land east of the highway. The revised design also reaped smaller savings in land acquisition at the southern terminus, he said.

Does that mean the final cost will come in $25 million under estimate? Probably not, says Utterback. VDOT has to set aside a contigency fund, and it will have to absorb Construction and Engineering Inspection costs. He anticipates that the available funds will cover those administrative costs.

Despite questions regarding expenditures such as landscaping and noise abatement, Jeff Werner, Albemarle and Charlottesville land use officer for the Piedmont Environmental Council, conceded that the project appears to come in under budget. He is baffled by how it’s possible for Skanska to slash out so many of the costs identified by VDOT staff but not incorporated into the original cost estimate, and he would like to dig into the accounting. But as long as Skanska does what it says it will, he said, he has no grounds to object to the bid.

The big question now is this: What trade-offs did Skanska make in its proposed design and how will they effect the bypass performance? In the original design, the Bypass would shave 2 1/2 to 3 minutes in driving time. But the substitution of a stop light or tighter curves for flyovers, and a steeper slope over Stillhouse Mountain to reduce excavation costs, could diminish the time savings and degrade the project’s economic Return on Investment.

Opponents also say that by the time the Skanska design is made public, there will be no public hearings or any other opportunities for the public to critique the alterations from previous incarnations of the design.