Bend, Buckle and Crack

The case for the proposed Charlottesville Bypass is collapsing like an old bridge. Even a VDOT consultant questions how well Skanska-Branch's design for the controversial highway can handle projected traffic loads.

southern terminusby James A. Bacon

Suspicions confirmed: Northbound trucks on the proposed Charlottesville Bypass would take nearly two minutes longer to pass through the southern interchange under contractor Skanska-Branch Joint Venture's preliminary design than under VDOT's original design -- nullifying much of the purpose of building the bypass in the first place.

The travel-time estimates come not from citizen activists opposed to the Bypass, whose concerns I have detailed on Bacon's Rebellion (see "A Bypass for Trucks that Trucks Won't Use.") It comes from VDOT's own consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff.

A Jan. 17, 2013, draft memo from Michael Fendrick with Parsons Brinckerhoff included a chart that listed computer-modeled travel times through the interchange under various scenarios. Under the original VDOT design, which used a "flyover" ramp allowing for 45 mile-per-hour travel, trucks would take 58.3 seconds on average to clear the interchange. Under the "3 lane diamond" design, adopted by Skanska-Branch for purposes of actual construction, the trip would take 167.7 seconds on average.

"As would be expected, the flyover is the best from a traffic and operations perspective," wrote Fendrick. "The 3 lane diamond with steep grades is substantially slower than the other alternatives due to signal delay plus truck acceleration issues." Given the steepness of the grade, trucks would have to travel 1,400 feet before accelerating to 45 miles per hour.

The difference between the two designs is 110 seconds -- offsetting much of the roughly 150-second travel-time savings the $244 million project was supposed to gain for north-bound trucks seeking to skirt a congested stretch of U.S. 29 north of Charlottesville. And that doesn't include other problems identified by Parsons Brinckerhoff and VDOT officials in documents obtained by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Skanska-Branch design also would create a problem with a "weaving" traffic pattern between the southern terminus and the Ivy Road interchange on the U.S. 250 Bypass. Weaving occurs when traffic entering a limited-access highway from one interchange conflicts with traffic on the highway seeking to exit at the next interchange. When interchanges are closely spaced or when conditions are already congested, the complex pattern can slow traffic, worsen congestion and increase the risk of traffic accidents.

Furthermore, the three-diamond design would create problems for south-bound drivers where the two-lane Bypass would split as it approached the southern terminus and merged with U.S. 250. "From a capacity standpoint," wrote Fendrick, "the merge will cause flow operation issues, particularly if the single lane to the right is at a low design speed."

When the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved $244 million in 2012 to fund the project, VDOT displayed schematics from an earlier design in its presentation to the board. No one had informed board members that engineers in the Richmond central office were questioning whether the project could be delivered for that price. The McDonnell administration finessed those concerns by setting up the Bypass as a design-build contract on the expectation that outside, private-sector bidders might find creative ways to redesign the 6.5-mile highway at lower cost.

Skanska-Branch submitted a low bid of $135 million to handle design and construction -- not including funds for preliminary engineering and Right of Way acquisition -- coming in just under the authorized amount. The company's conceptual design saved millions of dollars in construction costs by eliminating the southern-terminus flyovers, vastly reducing the amount of excavation, fill and new roadway construction work required. Despite the radical design changes -- drivers now would encounter two stoplights on a steep grade -- VDOT awarded the contract to Skanska-Branch.

A competing bidder, American Infrastructure, disputed the contract award, arguing that Skanska-Branch had failed to meet the specifications of VDOT's Request for Proposal. In a June 1, 2102, letter to Jeff Roby with VDOT's Alternate Project Delivery Office, the firm honed in on the southern terminus, specifically citing the problems created by the traffic signals, the weave traffic pattern, and the inability to handle large traffic volumes during special events at the nearby University of Virginia.

"VDOT has reviewed American Infrastructure's grounds for protest and has concluded that each ground is without merit," Roby responded. VDOT consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff, he said, had conducted an independent technical review of Skanska's traffic model and found that the proposal met VDOT's level-of-service requirements. Unwilling to jeopardize its relationship with VDOT, American Infrastructure dropped the protest.

Yet two months later in discussions with Skanska-Branch, officials at VDOT's Culpeper office were expressing concerns about how the southern-terminus interchange would handle UVa events. "VDOT stated that [Skanska-Branch] may need to take a more thorough look at the access needed by UVa for events, stating the event traffic may result in a need to put an additional lane on the bridge," according to the minutes of that August meeting.

A month later, according to minutes of a Sept. 12, 2012, meeting between Skanska-Branch and Culpeper engineers, VDOT officials discussed their preference for a free-flowing ramps over stoplights. "Stacking between the signals is also a concern to VDOT. They may require a 4th lane on the bridge that can be used as a reversible lane for UVA events. [Skanska-Branch] has a partially-developed option for this."

By November Fendricks with Parsons Brinckerhoff had begun drafting a "Preliminary Traffic Review" memo to discuss "multiple traffic issues." Among other matters, the November draft took note of the weaving issue. "Due to restrictions at the Old Ivy Road bridge, railroad bridge, and Ivy Road bridge the merge lane cannot be lengthened. We have all acknowledged this is a needed future project, and we will need to make sure [the Federal Highway Administration] is understanding as part of the IJR review process. The same issues were still noted in a third draft of the same memo dated Jan. 17, 2013.

VDOT did not respond to a Bacon's Rebellion request for comment.

VDOT appears to face a stark choice, says Morgan Butler, a senior attorney with SELC. Either the department can accept a design with numerous problems that undermine the justification for building the Bypass at all, or it can submit change orders to make the needed improvements, running the risk of significantly escalating the cost of the project.

Either way, taxpayers lose. Either they pay for a $244 million Bypass that provides little travel-time improvement and creates dangerous traffic conditions or they pay way more than they were told the project would cost. Says Butler: "It looks like a bait and switch."

Edit

Leave a Reply

Logged in as admin. Log out?

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>