Route 29 Bypass Project - Thomas Jefferson Planning District ...

Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
Steve Williams, Executive Director
1

• Memorandum on US29 Bypass
• Map of Proposed Project Corridor
• June 24 letter from Commissioner Whirley on Funding of US29
Bypass
• MPO Resolution Regarding US29 Bypass Construction Funding in
MPO TIP
• Summary of US29 Final Environmental Impact Statement (1993)
• Environmental Reevaluation of US29 Bypass (1998)
• Summary of US29 Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (2002)
• Public Comments received via mail and email prior before 7/8/11
• Public Comments received via mail and email between 7/8/11 and
7/14 (distributed at meeting)
2

• This presentation provides a summary of the US29
Bypass project
• Information in the presentation is taken from:
1. 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement
2. 1998 Environmental Reevaluation
3. 2002 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
• The project evaluated in those documents is the only
project under consideration. The proposed amendments
do not consider other bypass alternatives or a general
bypass option.
3

• “The purpose of the Route 29 Corridor Study is to find a solution to
existing and future congestion on a three-mile section of U.S. Route 29
between U.S. Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork of the Rivanna River
in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County North of
Charlottesville. A secondary purpose of the study is to complete a gap in
ongoing improvements to U.S. Route 29 through central Virginia”
-1993 FEIS, FHWA-VA-EIS-90-01-F, pg. I-1
• “The purpose and need for the project remain the same as before: reduce
congestion on existing Route 29 and enhance mobility for through
traffic.”
-2000 EIS Reevaluation, pg. 11
• “ The need for the proposed project is based on the inability of existing
Route 29 to adequately accommodate projected traffic volumes,
particularly traffic that is not generated by, or oriented to, the
development along existing Route 29.”
-2002 SEIS, FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-DS, 1-12
4

• October 1987: Location studies for a bypass are approved by
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB).
• 1987 to 1992: Public hearings and stakeholder interviews are held regarding
the development of the route 29 corridor study.
• 1992 to 1993: Alternative 10 of the corridor options is chosen as preferred
alternative, the Final EIS approved, and the record of decision is issued by
FHWA.
• 1993: MPO forms the Route 29 Design Committee.
• 1993 to 2001: Public hearing and stakeholder interviews are held, regarding
design changes and environmental concerns of the proposed project, MPO
route 29 design committee is included in this discussion.
• 1994: Termini revisions are proposed to federal and state environmental
agencies.
• 1995: CTB approves termini revisions.
• 1996: VDOT begins EIS reevaluation due to time elapse.
5

• 1998: Lawsuit filed regarding effects of proposed project on water resources
and watershed.
• 2000: EIS reevaluation approved.
• 2001: Court orders VDOT to prepare a Supplemental EIS to address water
issue concerns from lawsuit.
• 2002: Supplemental EIS approved.
• 2002: MPO puts language in TIP to prevent VDOT from accruing and
allocating construction funding for proposed route 29 bypass project.
• 2003: MPO disbands Route 29 Bypass Committee.
• 2004: General Assembly approves legislation requiring repayment of
expended federal and state funds if US29 Bypass is not constructed due to
opposition from the MPO and if Federal Highway Administration requires
reimbursement
• May 27, 2011: MPO Policy Board decides to reconsider adopted position on
US29 Western Bypass
6

Proposed
Hollymead
Town Center
Corridor
7
Distance: 6.24 miles
Type: 4 lane divided
highway
Interchanges: Two,
located at north and
south termini. North
interchange with
existing US29 is
located at
approximately
Ashwood Blvd. South
interchange with
US250/US29 includes a
connection to UVa
North Grounds.

Images taken from the 2002 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-DS
8

Images taken from the 2002 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-DS
9

Images taken from the 2002 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-DS
10

Location
2009 Annual
Average Daily
Traffic (VDOT)
2015 Traffic
Forecast
(1998
ReEval)*
2022 Traffic
Forecast
(SEIS)
US29 North of Ashwood Blvd (north terminus) 37,000 68,400
US29 South of Ashwood Blvd (north terminus) 47,000 49,000 46,300
US29 Bypass 21,600 24,400
Existing US29 Alignment btwn Hydraulic Rd and
Rio Rd 56,000 68,800
US250 East of Hydraulic Road 43,000 30,500 43,000
US29/250 btwn Ivy Rd and Fountaine Ave 42,000 35,000
*Traffic Forecasts in 1998 Environmental Reevaluation included extension of Meadow Creek Parkway to
intersect US29 at north terminus of US29 Bypass
11

• May 27 th 2011: MPO Policy Broad agreed to reconsider its
adopted position on the US29 Bypass
• June 24 th 2011: Letter from VDOT Commissioner Greg
Whirley stating VDOT will seek funding for US29 Bypass at
July Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) meeting.
He requests that the MPO amend the Constrained Long
Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) and Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) to include construction of the
US29 Bypass.
• June 27 th 2011: Two Public Hearings advertised to consider
amending Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan and
Transportation Improvement Program
12

• July 14 th 2011: MPO Policy Board to conduct first Public
Hearing. No action to be taken at this meeting due to
requirement for full funding assurance of both the CLRP and
TIP.
• July 20 th 2011: CTB to consider funding for US29 Bypass
• July 27 th 2011: MPO Policy Board to conduct second Public
Hearing and initial consideration of CLRP and TIP
amendments. The MPO Policy Board may take action on the
proposed amendments at this meeting or at a subsequent
meeting.
13

1. MPO could chose to maintain existing policy and take no
action on amendments to the CLRP and TIP.
2. If Commonwealth Transportation Board amends Six Year
Improvement Program to provide full funding for the US29
Bypass the MPO could amend the CLRP and TIP to include
the project for construction.
3. If Commonwealth Transportation Board does not amend
the Six Year Improvement Program to provide full funding
for the US29 Bypass the MPO could amend the CLRP and
TIP to include the project as a “Vision Project” that would
be eligible for future funding.
14

Prior to the CTB consideration for funding the US29 Bypass and
widening of US29 between Rio Mills Road and Timberlake
Drive The MPO Policy Board may want to communicate to
CTB about local transportations priorities such as:
• Hillsdale Drive
• US29/250 Lane and Ramp Improvements
• Berkmar Drive Extension
• Belmont Bridge
• Transit Service to Hollymead/Forest Lakes/Airport
15

If the CTB provides full funding and the MPO adds the US29
Bypass to the CLRP and TIP the following steps would need
to be completed prior to construction:
• Environmental Reevaluation at the discretion of VDOT and
Federal Highway Administration
• Completion of Project Design
• Completion of Right of Way acquisition
• Approval of Required Permits
16

Stephen Williams, Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, 22902
(434) 979-7310
swilliams@tjpdc.org
17