Why is VDOT providing outdated plans to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of a water quality permit application?

Below is a blog friendly version of the letter I received from VDOT Culpeper District Administrator James S. Utterback in response to my September 18, 2009 letter to Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer concerning using different VDOT plans to support different actions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Utterback's response clearly outlines that different plan sets were provided to both agencies, but does not state why this is an appropriate action. If in fact an interchange is the only currently approved southern terminus for the McIntire Road Extended project, why would VDOT provide the Corps of Engineers updated versions of the original at-grade intersection plans - plans that have been made obsolete by more recent actions by VDOT and Charlottesville City Council? Does this make any sense other than as a ploy by VDOT to obfuscate the true nature of the southern terminus of McIntire Road Extended and to avoid linking the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road and the McIntire Road Extended into one project?

If the southern terminus is currently planned to be an interchange, why provide plans to the Corps of Engineers for a project that will only be considered "if, and only if, the interchange project is abandoned. Is this an appropriate action by VDOT? I think the clear answer to this is no.

Do read the original letter and the response below and consider for yourself if this would meet a professional standard of practice in project planning.

---

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 ORANGE ROAD
CULPEPER. VIRGINIA 22701
virginiaDOT.org

DAVID S. EKERN, P.E.
COMMISSIONER

September 28, 2009

Mr. Peter T. Kleeman
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

Dear Mr. Kleeman:

Secretary Homer has asked that I thank you for and respond to your letter regarding the McIntire Road Extended project in Charlottesville.

As you are aware, the City of Charlottesville had originally intended for McIntire Road Extended to connect with the Route 250 Bypass with an at-grade intersection, and plans for the project were developed that showed an at-grade connection. The City later determined that a grade-separated interchange is necessary, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) subsequently revised its McIntire Road Extended plans to reflect a connection to the access ramps for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange project.

In conjunction with the Section 106 process for McIntire Road Extended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested additional information about the project. VDOT provided the requested information, including plans that showed the original at-grade intersection connection along with the background and explanation for the modification to the original plan. These plans were clearly marked "Original Design - Modified 08-01-09" and contain the latest modifications to the original plans that would be used to construct the at-grade intersection if, and only if the interchange project is abandoned.

The plans provided to the City of Charlottesville that supported the application for a permanent utility easement reflect changes to the easement area that were requested by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The Corps of Engineers has been advised of those modifications to the easement area, which do not affect the conditions the Corps is reviewing for the joint permit.

I regret that you were not able to contact the project manager to answer your questions. VDOT has consistently worked with you over the past several years to provide information and answer questions related to this and other transportation projects. To help us more efficiently respond to your questions, I suggest that you make such requests in writing to Mr. Lou Hatter, Culpeper District Public Affairs Manager, at 1601 Orange Road, Culpeper, Virginia 22701.

Sincerely,

[signature: J. S. Utterback]

James S. Utterback, PMP
Culpeper District Administrator

Copy - The Honorable Pierce R. Homer
Mr David S Ekern P.E.
Mr. Lou Hatter

---

September 18, 2009

Mr. Pierce R. Homer
Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond VA 23218

Dear Secretary Homer:

I have followed the development of a project called the Meadowcreek Parkway since about 1994 and have experienced the many transitions from it being a single federally funded project connecting Preston Avenue near downtown Charlottesville to Rio Road to it now being represented as three separate projects – Meadow Creek Parkway in Albemarle County, the McIntire Road Extended in Charlottesville, and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road at the intersection of the proposed McIntire Road Extended and U.S. Route 250 Bypass in Charlottesville. I am troubled that in August of this year VDOT sent a revised U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application along with plans indicating that the McIntire Road Extended project has an at-grade intersection at its southern terminus at U.S. Route 250 Bypass. But, also in August 2009 VDOT provided me plans indicating that McIntire Road Extended has its southern ‘terminus’ not at U.S. Route 250 Bypass, but 775 feet north of the bypass where it will presumably join the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project. It also appears that VDOT distributed inconsistent plans to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville in August 2009 related to a permit application, and a request for a permanent utility easement, respectively. I contacted the VDOT project manager in the Culpeper District several times by telephone in the last two weeks hoping to clarify which of these inconsistent plans is the actual current plan, and why different plans have been distributed to the Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville, but have not received any such clarification.

As a civil engineer myself, I question the practice as well as the ethics of distributing inconsistent plans to stakeholders in the very same project. Not only are there inconsistencies in the plans, but the descriptions of the McIntire Road Extended project termini are different in the current Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program and the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program.

Distribution of inconsistent plans makes it impossible for interested parties in the project development process to provide meaningful and substantive comments about the project. Please look into what appears to me to be significant shortcomings in the information being provided to the Corps of Engineers, the City of Charlottesville, and to other project stakeholders by VDOT. I look forward to getting a formal statement indicating what the current plan is upon which current permit and right-of-way decisions should be based.

Sincerely,


Peter T. Kleeman
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
peter.kleeman@gmail.com
(434) 296-6208

Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road Public Hearing Brochue now available online (and here)

Above is a graphic of the proposed design of the Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road that will be the subject of the October 29, 2009 design public hearing (see previous blog entry). Material associated with the development of this project is available online at www.250interchange.org . The project brochure describing the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road that will be distributed at the October 29, 2009 public hearing is now available and is duplicated below (click on the images to enlarge).

The Federal Highway Administration continues to consider this project totally independent of the proposed McIntire Road Extended, but this is a point of controversy that will likely be discussed at an upcoming meeting where representatives of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the City of Charlottesville and Virginia Department of Transportation will be addressing this and other issues relating to this project.

Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road Design Public Hearing scheduled October 29, 2009

This announcement (click on image to enlarge) was placed in the September 29, 2009 issue of the Daily Progress. I am surprised that this hearing is being scheduled prior to termination of the Section 106 (historical preservation) review is completed. In fact, a meeting is scheduled to discuss Section 106 issues on this project on October 9, 2009 - the same day the environmental document containing Section 106 effects determination is to be made available to the public. Curious, eh?

I would think it more appropriate to discuss the inter-relationships among design and historic preservation alternatives prior to having the formal design public hearing. As a consulting party of the Section 106 review on this project I have been disappointed at the lack of consideration of historic properties and the lack of interest demonstrated by Federal Highway Administration in considering historic preservation issues as part of the design process.

Do review the material and provide comments at the meeting or using other methods outlined in the announcement.

Daniel Bluestone leads tour of historic Rock Hill Garden after Hands Across McIntire Park event

Daniel Bluestone of the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park (CPMP) led a tour of the historic Rock Hill Garden landscape - a landscape threatened by the proposed McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road projects. The garden is behind the Park Street building where the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) is located. This garden is one of several historic properties that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Histsoric Places and will be negatively impacted by the roadway projects.

About 20 of the 200-300 people who participated in the Hands Across McIntire Park event on September 27 enjoyed the garden and learned much of the history and historic importance of this garden on the tour.

One of the mitigation ideas to limit impacts on this garden from the road projects is to ensure that a dense stand of trees shield the highway from the garden. But, a sewer easement is currently being considered for transfer to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority that would be forty feet wide and eliminate the possibility of planting large trees in the easement. This easement directly restricts the opportunity to provide screening between the road and the garden. A city council decision on the proposed easement may be on the next City Council agenda on the first Monday in October.

My letter to Pierce Homer - Secretary of Transportation

Here is a letter I mailed (and sent an electronic copy through the Secretary's website) to Mr. Pierce R. Homer, Secretary of Transportation of Virginia. I tried several times to get some answers from the VDOT Culpeper District project contacts, but didn't get any response to my telephone messages - until after I sent this letter. And, the response I got was to contact someone else. I look forward to finding out what is really going on. I will let you know when I know. Is this any way to run a Department of Transportation? - Peter Kleeman

September 18, 2009

Mr. Pierce R. Homer
Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond VA 23218

Dear Secretary Homer:

I have followed the development of a project called the Meadowcreek Parkway since about 1994 and have experienced the many transitions from it being a single federally funded project connecting Preston Avenue near downtown Charlottesville to Rio Road to it now being represented as three separate projects – Meadow Creek Parkway in Albemarle County, the McIntire Road Extended in Charlottesville, and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road at the intersection of the proposed McIntire Road Extended and U.S. Route 250 Bypass in Charlottesville. I am troubled that in August of this year VDOT sent a revised U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application along with plans indicating that the McIntire Road Extended project has an at-grade intersection at its southern terminus at U.S. Route 250 Bypass. But, also in August 2009 VDOT provided me plans indicating that McIntire Road Extended has its southern ‘terminus’ not at U.S. Route 250 Bypass, but 775 feet north of the bypass where it will presumably join the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project. It also appears that VDOT distributed inconsistent plans to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville in August 2009 related to a permit application, and a request for a permanent utility easement, respectively. I contacted the VDOT project manager in the Culpeper District several times by telephone in the last two weeks hoping to clarify which of these inconsistent plans is the actual current plan, and why different plans have been distributed to the Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville, but have not received any such clarification.

As a civil engineer myself, I question the practice as well as the ethics of distributing inconsistent plans to stakeholders in the very same project. Not only are there inconsistencies in the plans, but the descriptions of the McIntire Road Extended project termini are different in the current Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program and the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program.

Distribution of inconsistent plans makes it impossible for interested parties in the project development process to provide meaningful and substantive comments about the project. Please look into what appears to me to be significant shortcomings in the information being provided to the Corps of Engineers, the City of Charlottesville, and to other project stakeholders by VDOT. I look forward to getting a formal statement indicating what the current plan is upon which current permit and right-of-way decisions should be based.

Sincerely,


Peter T. Kleeman
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
peter.kleeman@gmail.com
(434) 296-6208

VDOT is silent on the McIntire Road Extended project

I visited the VDOT website describing project in the Culpeper District (in which all of Albemarle County and Charlottesville project fall) to see how the McIntire Road Extended project was characterized. To my surprise, there was no listing of this project in the VDOT online listing of current Culpeper Distsrict projects. The Meadow Creek Parkway project that runs north from Melbourne Road to Rio Road is listed as under construction. The VDOT description of this project states that the project "will connect with McIntire Road Extended at the Charlottesville city line, which will extend the new roadway alignment south to the Route 250 Bypass." This is consistent with the plans for McIntire Road Extended provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in VDOT's Corps Permit application dated August 7, 2009. But, there is no listing of the McIntire Road Extended as a current project. The Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project is listed as a proposed project that "currently includes preliminary engineering (design) only."

But, there is no independent listing for McIntire Road Extended where VDOT describes the project. Perhaps VDOT doesn't want to state clearly if the project includes an at-grade intersection (as the plans provided to the Corps of Engineers indicate) or if the project starts 775 feet north of Route 250 Bypass as the most recent plans provide me by VDOT indicate. VDOT is apparently silent on this issue.

Also, I have telephoned the project contact at VDOT several times in the last two weeks by telephone leaving a voice message asking what the current plans are for McIntire Road Extended but I have not gotten a response of any kind from VDOT in response to my inquiries.

The VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program lists the project description as going "FROM: ROUTE 250 BYPASS AT MCINTIRE ROAD TO: MELBOURNE ROAD INTERSECTION (0.5200 KM)." This would be consistent with what has been provided to the Corps of Engineers, but the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program describes the project as "FROM: 0.147 MILES [775 feet] N. OF RT. 250 BYPASS TO 0.004 MILES S OF MELBOURNE RD INTERSECTION (0.8600 KM)," consistent with the most recent VDOT plans I received.

When will VDOT clarify this for us all? If I don't get any response from the project managers in the next day or two, I will be consacting the Secretary of Transportation to see if I can get some feedback. I will post the true limits and description of this project when VDOT provides me one. Meanwhile, the Charlottesville City Council is contemplating granting an easement to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority based on the project not including an at-grade intersection. An additional sewer easement would be required if the project includes the at-grade intersection. I urged the city council not to grant any easements until the true description of the project is revealed and all necessary planning decisions are made about how the road will actually connect to Route 250 Bypass (at-grade or at an interchange) - or if there will be a road at all.

When will these storm drains be cleared?

The two storm drains on Fourth Street N.E. between High Street and Hedge Street had silt barriers installed many months ago to keep soil eroded from the Juvenile and Domestic Court renovation from adding to the silt burden in the storm water system. There is so much silt collected in one that a good crop of vegetation is growing in it. The other is heavily burdened with sand, gravel, soil, and other material that only a small area is open to receive storm water.

Now that the Juvenile and Domestic Court project is essentially complete (and an opening ceremony held several weeks ago) I am thinking that these drains have been abandoned by whomever was obligated to maintain the drains and the silt barriers. I contacted the city's environmental coordinator who promised to find out who should handle this material last week (and offered to do the job myself if that was necessary). The court project is a city project, and I believe they could easily identify who is responsible for this work. If the city claims to be eco-friendly, they also need to attend to eco-impacts from their projects.

I saw a city street cleaning truck work this block and watched the driver avoid the drains rather than address the situation. I did report the situation via charlottesville.org several days ago and not heard or seen any sort of response. Perhaps I will take action and bundle up the silt baffles, the trapped material and deliver it to someone at the city. Any suggestions as to whom I should bring the collected material?