Greene BOS Passes Truck Issue to VDOT

By Brent Wilson, Field Officer

On Tuesday, May 28^th, the Greene County Board of Supervisors  held a public hearing concerning the restriction of semi-trucks through downtown Stanardsville. This is one of several steps required to make it illegal for semi-trucks to travel through downtown Stanardsville.

The issue has gathered quite a bit of momentum among residents and business owners of Stanardsville, in fact, many wore a sticker with a line drawn through a truck. A total of 21 people spoke to the Board taking several different points of view, however, the main issue raised was safety with most of the county’s schools being located in Stanardsville.

Gary Lowe, mayor of Stanardsville, was the first speaker and Chairman Jim Frydl asked that he give an overview of the project. He indicated that this public hearing is one step that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) . If the BOS passes the issue to VDOT  then a study would be performed by VDOT which could then be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)  for a final vote. The issue is the semi-truck traffic through downtown Stanardsville with the alternative being to route traffic east of Stanardsville onto Business 33 to connect to Route 230 heading to Madison County . Mr. Lowe pointed out that this t-intersection is problematic however traffic is managed as it is a narrow two lane road and the turning radius is very difficult for semi-trucks to navigate in either direction. Semi-trucks having business in Stanardsville will still be permitted to travel down Main Street as they currently do. Mr. Lowe summarized that this is a safety issue and with the Streetscaping Project beginning the reduced truck traffic would cause less wear to the street in town.

The issues that the speakers brought up ranged from the noise of the truck traffic, the vibration and potential damage to the sewer system, the owner of a preschool expressing concern for the children in her school, etc. The owner of the Lafayette Hotel, Alan Pyles , expressed concern over the noise of trucks changing gears in front of his hotel. Several speakers brought up the issue of dining outside being interrupted by truck traffic in town. Don Pamenter, head of the County’s Economic Development Authority, agreed that restricting truck traffic from downtown Stanardsville is not the ideal solution but hopes that Greene can work with Madison County to totally restrict semi-trucks from Route 230 and make Stanardsville more inviting. Jackie Pamenter, President of the Greene County Historical Society, gave some history of Stanardsville and how it was laid out with its narrow streets. She felt that truck traffic should be restricted through town and believes that Mr. Stanard would agree with her.

However, some speakers supported leaving the traffic pattern alone. Several speakers expressed concern about the turn radius if you force trucks to head westbound on Main Street and have to make the right hand turn onto Route 230 North. Trucks have to swing into the oncoming traffic lane and go up onto the grass of the opposite lane – blocking oncoming traffic – to complete the turn. The logic was that restricting truck traffic through town was just trading it for another problem making the right hand turn onto Route 230 North.

After the public speakers, Joel DeNunzio from VDOT addressed the BOS and outlined the process if the BOS passed the issue on to VDOT. There are 4 criteria of which 3 must be attained in order for the project to be approved.

1. A reasonable alternative route is available that is appropriate as the old route.

2. Is the character of the truck traffic not compatible with the area.

3. Roadway is residential – meaning per 1,000 feet there are 12 homes.

OR

4. Rural alternative road – this alternative is not available

He confirmed that a safety study would be performed and made available to Greene County. Mr. Cox asked if there was any recourse if VDOT denied the change, which Mr. DeNunzio said there was none. Mr. Deane asked Mr. Lowe about the crosswalks in the streetscapes project and was told that they are to be stamped asphalt – the most cost effective alternative  . Mr. Cox confirmed that making the right hand turn onto Route 230 is dangerous and that it is safer to make the left hand off Main Street onto Route 230. Mr. Deane stated he had not seen trucks speeding through Stanardsville and while restricting truck traffic through town may make it safer, there is an increased safety issue at Main Street and Route 230. Mr. Peyton stated he believes that truck drivers are safer than regular traffic as their CDL license depends on being safe and not being cited.

Chairman Frydl agreed with many of the points that the other supervisors raised and doubted that VDOT would approve the restriction but he placed a lot of value in receiving the analysis that VDOT would perform. In addition, he cited the overwhelming support of the public of passing this issue on to VDOT for their analysis and encouraged the BOS should let VDOT do the analysis and make a recommendation. At that point, the motion to pass on to VDOT was unanimously approved.

The Free Enterprise Forum applauds the open discussion and citizen activism that generated this request.  We agree this is a safety issue that should be studied by the engineers at VDOT rather than be a political issue in Greene County.

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.

US29 Bypass – Building a Roadblock is Easier Than Building a Road

By. Neil Williamson, President

On Thursday, May 23rd, from 5 pm – 7 pm at the University Area Holiday Inn,  The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will be holding an open house style meeting to discuss alternative designs to the southern terminus of the US 29 Western Bypass.  But the question is will “the public” focus on the meeting topic or use this meeting as a platform for opposition to this much needed safety improvement to US29?

Based on the e-mail and Facebook traffic I have seen this week, I fully anticipate the “roadblock builders” to be out in great numbers at this meeting.  Does this mean the public is opposed to the road? 

No, in fact our 2004 transportation survey, Charlottesville Tomorrow 2012 survey [graphic] (and others) as well as the 2011 Rivanna District Supervisor election all seem to indicate the pubic is in favor of the road.

However, when a cohort of any population, regardless of size, is in opposition to a project that cohort is generally more energized than the cohort that is in support of an already approved project.  Therefore, I anticipate the “road blockers” to dominate the attendance at Thursday’s citizen informational meeting.

While the Free Enterprise Forum applauds this vocal minority for remaining engaged, we question the structural integrity of their current six part “GO29” argument.

Please let me explain. 

On their website, The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) advocates for several steps to relieve the congestion on US29 other than the bypass. 

The first step in building an effective roadblock is to redefine the argument.  If you can include portions of the opposition’s solution in your solution, you will have them chasing their rhetorical tail.

By branding this as “GO29”, the SELC seems to think the public will not recognize that many parts of “their” solution are already in process at the direction of those supporting the bypass {and were included in Places29].

From the SELC website:

We can’t bypass our problems. Our community has developed an approach that addresses traffic backups directly, and also gives drivers more ways to reach destinations. Our Go29 video highlights six key pieces of the solution:       

1. Improve the interchange with the 250 Bypass near Best Buy;  
2. Build a compact overpass at Hydraulic Road to eliminate a major source of congestion and allow through-traffic on 29 to flow without stopping;
3. Extend Hillsdale Drive parallel to 29 to give local drivers ways to reach destinations without having to use 29;
4. Build a second compact overpass at Rio to solve this traffic snarl (same concept as Hydraulic);
5. Extend Berkmar Drive up to Hollymead Town Center and beyond, so that drivers could go from Kmart to Lowe’s to Target without getting on 29; and
6. Eliminate the bottleneck between the Rivanna River and Hollymead by widening 29 in both directions.

Wait a minute, four of these items are not issues.  There is community consensus (and in some cases studies completed and even funding) for:

1. The Best Buy Ramp
2. Hillsdale Drive Extended
3. Berkmar Drive Extended
4. The widening of US29 North of the Rivanna River

By suggesting these other items won’t be built, SELC is knowingly constructing a multi faceted false choice argument designed to obfuscate the simple question Expressway or Bypass?  

Should vehicles without business in the North US29 corridor be forced to go through the corridor or should they be given the option to bypass it?

But none of this is the topic of Thursday’s meeting.

According to VDOT:

The purpose of this Citizen Information Meeting is to provide an opportunity for interested citizens and organizations to review preliminary alternatives for the proposed interchange at the southern terminus of the project. . . The project will include construction of a new interchange at the southern terminus of the project that will replace the existing U.S. 250 Bypass interchange at Leonard Sandridge Road. VDOT is considering three alternative configurations for this proposed interchange. Displays showing each alternative under consideration are being presented at this meeting for public review and comment.

So the question remains, will Thursday’s meeting be about the alternatives to the southern terminus of US29 Bypass or a trip down the roadblock builder’s rhetorical rabbit hole?

Will the vocal minority succeed in redefining the meeting agenda to include settled issues or will VDOT be able to maintain the focus on the three proposed southern terminus options?

Clearly in Albemarle County, and many communities, building a roadblock is much easier than building a road.

Stay tuned.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson,President

 

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: Free Enterprise Forum, Disney

Graphic Credit: Charlottesville Tomorrow

Fluvanna Supervisors Talk Roads

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

PALMYRA — The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the Virginia Department of Transportation’s six-year-plan for Fluvanna County and was briefed on the Fork Union project during the May 15 meeting.

VDOT’s plan includes paving several unpaved country roads through the ‘rural rustic road’ program and widening heavily traveled county roads.

The rural rustic roads to get paved are Hells Bend Road (Route 606), Stag Road (Route 715), Lantre Road (Route 621), Canal Street (Route 687) and Radicel Circle (Route 687).

Garden Lane (Route 636) qualifies for Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) funds because it has high enough usage and is unpaved. This is different than the rural rustic program that has maximums of road usage to qualify. CTB formula has a minimum to be included and Garden Lane is the only unpaved Fluvanna road to qualify.

The major road projects are widening two county routes, both named North Boston Road (Route 600 and Route 633). North Boston connects the Lake Monticello area to Troy. It is often used by Lake Monticello area traffic to get to Zion Crossroad. This two lane road does not have side white lines and has many pavement patches.

Joe Chesser (Rivanna District) asked for its inclusion during an April VDOT work session. The two projects for the one road were included in previous six-year plans so it could be included in this year’s version without issue. The entire road has a budget of over $3 million to complete. It will require funds in each of the six years to complete the ‘minor widening.’

VDOT also includes in the six-year plan rural additions, countywide engineering and surveying, countywide traffic services and countywide right of way studies for general usage. This helps with speed studies, incidental work that comes up and other issues that arise throughout the budget cycle.

The entire six-year plan has an estimated allocation of $1.2 million from the state government.

Since 2004 the Fork Union community has prepared for a streetscape project. The project is to help improve Route 15 at or near the Route 6 intersection. The project has been slow-moving but county staff hope to submit plans to improve the west side of Route 15 from the Post Office to the second entrance of Fork Union Military Academy soon.

The request for bid will include curb and gutter work, crosswalks, concrete sidewalks with grass utility strip, vehicle entrances, street lights and metering equipment for the business side of Route 15.

Also included in the request will be the first alternate plan to include installation of site furnishings and dry-laid brick pavers in lieu of the grass utility strip. The second alternate is to extend the project from the Post Office to Academy Road (the ‘new’ road around the academy). The third alternate is installing site furnishings and dry-laid brick pavers to that second entrance and the final alternate is street trees installed in the brick paver sections.

The entire project, including all alternates is estimated at $475,300. The early estimates of the construction of just the base bid and first section of brick pavers is $395,900. The project estimates grant money available will be $400,000 for construction costs.

The hope is to get a request for bid out in the next month but the plan has hit snags along the way since 2004. Originally the plan included from the Post Office to the Dollar Store but it was discovered landowners owned from the middle of the road. In order to do such a project, landowners would have to give permanent right of way which not all were willing to do.

Pat Groot, grans administrator for the county, believes as long as the plan moves to bid soon, the county won’t lose any grant money. However, if the plan is delayed longer the transportation enhancement grants have been under heavy scrutiny because many localities have been stretching the project timeframes out.

——————————————————————-

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Heavy Handed Albemarle Comp Plan is Not Ready For Prime Time

By. Neil Williamson, President

The 2013 Comprehensive Update to Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan is headed to public hearing on Tuesday (4/2) night.  The plan is available online, but the Free Enterprise Forum purchased a hard copy from the Planning Department for the princely sum of $168.

The new plan weighs in at about half the weight of the previous plan and we applaud the use of appendices rather than embedding policies and master plans into the text of the comp plan. 

We are encouraged by the brief (shortest in the Comp Plan) but meaningful chapter on Economic Development as well as the recognition of the importance of agriculture and forestry to the rural areas. We are encouraged that the document asks the question ‘How do Cash Proffers hinder density’.

But with that being said, we find the comprehensive plan to be lacking a consistent, unified voice.  For all the brevity of the Economic Development chapter, there are long winded almost evangelical undercurrents written into the Natural (and Historic) Resources chapters that have little or no concern for the cost of implementation nor property owner rights and do not belong in this planning document. 

  …the County should develop the action plan to focus on conserving ecological integrity at the scale of the landscape.  The landscape approach focuses on a wide scale (square miles rather than square feet) an the management of major land features (e.g., forest blocks, watersheds, urbanized areas) to both conserve ecological diversity and support conservation measures (such as conservation easements) or for restoration efforts.  This plan should also establish conservation approaches for aquatic conservation through land management techniques designed for a specific watershed. (5.1.14)

The concept of a historical protection ordinance has been a flaw in Albemarle County’s comprehensive plan for years.  In this iteration, the concept has been vastly expanded to use GIS technology to create a historic overlay layer and empower (likely without legislative authority) the Architectural Review Board to evaluate development proposals and by right building in and adjacent to the Historic Overlay.

Strategy 2b.3: Expand the Authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to include the review required under the recommended historical overlay district ordinance.  Revise the make-up of the ARB to include members with expertise in historic preservation and revise the name of the board accordingly.

Strategy 2b.4: Establish an advisory review by the ARB of all rezonings, special use permits, site plans, and subdivision plats for proposals located within or abutting a locally designated historic district to ensure that historic preservation considerations are available as part of the decision making process. (5.2.10)

The Free Enterprise Forum has already written extensively about the Monticello Land Grab that is currently drafted into the comp plan has attempted to put into the Comprehensive Plan.  To be clear there is no reason for Monticello’s viewshed to be enumerated in the Comprehensive Plan.  We encourage Monticello to work directly with their neighbors to discuss how each of them exercise their property rights and leave government out of the equation.  

Upon further study, it became clear that Monticello is not the only entity seeking to regulate aesthetics.  Under the Cultural and Scenic resources section the comprehensive plan calls for expanded (again without legislative authority) power for Albemarle County:

The County’s scenic resources are highly valued and contribute both to the quality of life and the tourism economy.  Existing regulations only go so far in protecting the resources.  Greater ability to regulate aesthetics is desired to help preserve these qualities. (5.2.14)

The Transportation chapter section of the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated to reflect reality.  Without population increases exponentially above the current projection, automobiles will continue to be the dominant form of transportation and home buyers will continue to choose homes that best fit their lifestyle choices rather than being limited by transportation availability.  Highlighting an anti car/anti personal mobility bias the plan states:

Dispersed development patterns have helped promote a transportation network that is mostly focused on the automobile.  In the past, a more abundant supply of cheap land and fuel encouraged development patterns that have become hard to sustain.  Today, and n the future, the local transportation system is faced with the challenge of finding adequate revenue, an aging transportation infrastructure (and an aging population), higher energy prices, and accommodating future population and employment growth….

Since our founding, the Free Enterprise Forum has had issues with the mandated neighborhood model form of development and the manner in which the County has now codified THE MODEL rather than a model.  Considering the importance of this document and our ten years of experience with THE model shouldn’t more time be taken to see how these “principles” have turned out in real projects both good and bad?  In addition, based on all of the evidence light rail will not work in Albemarle County in the next 50 years; why then is it still on page 5.5.19 of the comprehensive plan. 

The Free Enterprise Forum appreciates the significant effort staff and the Planning Commission have put into the document thus far.  We believe there are positives in this iteration but we also believe it could still be better.

We hope that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors take their time with the document that is supposed to guide our community for the next twenty years.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville. The full Contradictory Consequences report can be found at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

 

Should VDOT Force Trucks to Bypass Stanardsville?

By Brent Wilson, Greene County Field Officer

The Route 33 by-pass around Stanardsville in Greene County  was built in 2000.  This project was first envisioned in 1964 as part of the Virginia Arterial System that was designated for 4-laning and bypasses around major towns. The connection between US-33 from I-81 at Harrisonburg to US-29 at Ruckersville was considered an important part of this plan.   Elkton’s bypass was completed in the early 1970’s.  In addition to improving traffic flow on the arterials, such bypasses also reduce the impact of through traffic on the towns bypassed, especially tractor trailers. Logically you would think that “if you build it, they will come”

The reality is for traffic headed East or West, the Bypass works well.

But for traffic coming to and from the North, geometry wins out.

Traffic coming from the north and wanting to cross over to Route 81 have two options to get there. They can take the right triangle of Route 29 South to Ruckersville and head west on Route 33 and take the scenic bypass [16.0 miles]. However, the shorter route is the hypotenuse of the right triangle. From Madison take Route 230 South which ends on the east side of Stanardsville and then turn right through town on Main Street (old Route 33) toward the valley [12.6 miles]. Of course, this works in reverse for traffic heading north.

So, the economics of taking the shorter (less costly route) wins and one of the benefits of the bypass is significantly diluted.  The question is should through truck traffic be prohibited in Stanardsville? 

This issue is significant enough to be included in the Town of Standardsville Comprehensive Plan.

The Main Street of Stanardsville currently sustains an excessive amount of truck traffic, 9% of all vehicles.  This leads to heightened safety concerns, increases need for roadway maintenance, and generates pollution and noise in close proximity to businesses and homes. The route is utilized as a shortcut by trucks travelling eastbound on Route 33 to northbound on Route 29, although there is little evidence that this alternative route saves time on average.

At the February 26^th BOS meeting Supervisor Davis Lamb brought up a citizen’s request to hold a public hearing to discuss the Town of Stanardsville’s  request to consider the restriction of truck traffic in Stanardsville 

Chairman Jim Frydl said the BOS would be willing to hold a public hearing if there were any facts regarding safety issues and concerns.

Fast forward to the March 26^th meeting. Stanardsville Mayor Gary Lowe  was one of 14 people addressing the issue of truck traffic in Stanardsville. Speaking under “other matters from the public” Lowe explained that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)  has four criteria to check before they will consider redirecting tractor trailer traffic of which the first three have been met. The fourth step is to have the BOS hold a public hearing and then decide if they will pass a resolution of support that would then be forwarded to VDOT. VDOT would then have up to 9 months to render a decision based on a study of alternative route safety, impact on trucks and does it benefit the community. VDOT must also have support and commitment of local law enforcement before they agree to redirect truck traffic.

Sherriff Steve Smith  addressed the BOS and stated that his department is neutral on the matter but that he could enforce the new restriction if VDOT approved.

The other speakers expressed concerns from safety issues, the streetscape expenditures  to happen this year, noise issues, aesthetic issues, etc. Only one speaker, after listing five negatives about the truck traffic in Stanardsville, offered up a positive – it is less traffic on the bypass.

The BOS made no comment in response to the issues raised under “matters from the public” session of their meeting. The Free Enterprise Forum applauds the public’s participation and encourages the BOS to go forward with the public hearing to allow comments from both sides of this issue.

——————————————–

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: http://www.wrx900.com/, bing maps 

Historical Repetition US29 Bypass

“All this has happened before, and it will all happen again.” –

Peter Pan Walt Disney Pictures 1953

Last week, utilizing a Freedom of Information Act request, Charlottesville Tomorrow obtained an Army Corps of Engineers letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) critical of the US 29 Western Bypass moving forward without additional study up to perhaps, a new full Environmental Impact Statement.

Rather than citing specific data lapses and specific federal wetlands concerns, the Army Corps of Engineers letter relies on data provided by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)  and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Coalition (CATCO). That these two organizations were called out, in SELC’s case cited four times by name, suggests the Army Corps of Engineers was heavily lobbied.

The letter, which missed the processes required deadline due to “workload …and the complexity of the matters at hand”, suggests that the Environmental Assessment (EA) process be rewound to start and reconsider all the alternative routes and solutions.

The past is clearly prologue here because on this specific road this matter was heard and addressed in Piedmont Environmental and Sierra Club v. United States Department of Transportation lawsuit. The suit was returned supporting FHWA decision on all but one count and this was supported in the appellate decision.  The final count, which could have been legally defended was mitigated and removed in 2003.

Interestingly on page 20 of Federal Judge Norman Moon’s 40 page decision the court found the contention regarding a lack of consideration of alternatives was “completely without merit”.

Fast forward just under a decade and you see the Army Corps of Engineers, under significant lobbing from the left, utilizing many of the same facts as were decided in the PEC case. Recognizing the Army Corps self identified “workload” issues, it is easy to see how legal language from well placed letters with cut and paste legal language may have found their way into the Corps letter.

While we were disappointed in the Army Corps letter, both in content and timing, the Free Enterprise Forum believes FHWA still retains the ability to approve the roadway with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Most if not all of the concerns raised in the Army Corps letter were dealt with as a part of the 2001 Moon decision. Any new regulatory requirements could be mitigated as the project applies for and receives permits from the Corps.

Of course once FHWA issues their ruling, this Federal action will likely generate a lawsuit from an alphabet soup of opponents to the roadway.

Perhaps Yogi Berra said it best, “It’s déjà vu all over again”

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

VDOT’s US29 Bypass Environmental Assessment

This letter was provided (without photographs)  to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on October 5, 2012:

RE: US Route 29 Charlottesville Bypass Environmental Assessment

State Project No.: 0029-002-844, P101; UPC 102419

Dear Ms. Deem,

The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization, appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Environmental Assessment (EA) of US29 Bypass. By means of background, the Free Enterprise Forum has been an active participant in Central Virginia’s land use and transportation discussions for just shy of a decade.

For the better part of the decade we have advocated for transportation solutions. When the Places29 plan was considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the Free Enterprise Forum opposed the plan, in part because it failed to even consider the US29 Bypass as a potential solution. We believed then, as we do now, the US29 Western Bypass must be a part of any real transportation solution.

This project has a long history marked by successful delay tactics. The initial Finding of No Significant Impact was issued in 1995, with a reevaluation and Revised Record of Decision was issued in 2000. After litigation, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) Record of Decision was issued in 2003. As this project moved through the approvals and litigation, traffic only continued to grow on US29.

Even though some of the areas on US29 North have been rezoned and/or developed since the 1995 study was originally prepared, these areas have been designated for high density growth since at least the 1984 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan. This designation was factored in when the original route was developed. 

Significantly, the route of the bypass has been on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use maps for many, many years.   The most recent map, which was effective up until Places 29 was approved, is entitled “2015 Land Use Map” and is marked “Adopted June 1996, Amended May 2010.”  So all land use decisions since at least 1984 were made with the expectation that this road follow this route and as recently as May 2010 Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan map envisioned this road in this location for its long range planning purposes.

Despite claims to the contrary, the EA correctly notes that “the current forecasts for 2040 confirm that up to 28% of traffic will divert to the proposed bypass from existing Route 29” (page 6). The project will result in significant improvement in traffic flow on the new Business 29. The EA states that “the Route 29/Hydraulic road intersection, the average delay would be reduced by approximately 42% in the AM peak and by approximately 35% in the PM peak” (page 14). Clearly the US29 Bypass continues to meet the identified purpose and need as described in the previously approved National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents.

The Free Enterprise Forum appreciates the level of detail and clarity included in the EA regarding citizen concerns and the metrics used to determine what, if any, mitigation may be required. We believe this document meets or exceeds the requirements and should be forwarded to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval.

While we anticipate relatively swift approval from FHWA, we also fully anticipate one, if not more, federal lawsuits will challenge this decision. Based on our comprehensive analysis of the EA coupled with the favorable federal court opinion in 2003, the Free Enterprise Forum believes the 2012 Environmental Assessment will be upheld and the project to move forward.

Thank you for the opportunity for the community to comment on this critically important project. Once constructed, the US29 Bypass will provide Virginia with a significantly safer, less congested roadway for all its citizens.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

Proposed US29 Western Bypass Extension is Too Short – and Too Long

By. Neil Williamson, President

The Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is discussing a conceptual plan to extend the US29 Western Bypass.  This concept is being presented at their September 26th meeting and will be discussed as a part of the Long Rage Transportation Plan for the next couple of months.  Charlottesville Tomorrow’s Sean Tubbs has the story in this morning’s Daily Progress

The Free Enterprise Forum believes that this is a great topic for long term discussion but the project is both too long and too short.

The core benefits of this proposed extension are two fold.  First it would provide improved access to one of our economic development assets the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport (CHO) and it would ease congestion on North US29.

To accomplish the first benefit the road is too long.  A singular project connecting the existing airport to the federally funded Western Bypass [with the ability to later be extended] would be significantly less expensive and, considering the economic development benefit,  would be more likely to be competitive for the ever decreasing transportation funding dollars.

To accomplish the second task of truly easing traffic on US29, the proposed extension is too short.  As any one who drives this stretch of US29 regularly knows, congestion starts north of the Greene County line.  A wider lens is required to see the potential of a longer Western Bypass Extension that would rejoin US29 somewhere north and/or west of the US29/US33 intersection.

While the current MPO is limited by the geographic boundaries of Albemarle County’s growth area, it seems clear that in the next census, Greene County will be forced to join the MPO.  Such an MPO Expansion will most likely take place long before the US29 Western Bypass Extension would be full funded.  Prudent planning would suggest the MPO factor this reality into their planning.

The Free Enterprise Forum calls on the MPO in considering their long term transportation planning to consider the potentiality for both a shorter AND a longer US29 Western Bypass Extension.

Sometimes two projects are better than one.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

US29 Bypass Faces “Obstacle Illusions”

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By Neil Williamson, President

For the last eight weeks, well funded transportation obstructionist organizations have attempted to hijack the US29 Bypass Environmental Assessment review process by changing the dynamics and falsely suggesting this week’s input session is a hurdle that must be crossed to allow the EA to move forward. 

In addition these groups are using a classic form of rhetorical argument where if you do not like the answer change the question.  This creation of “Obstacle Illusions” is confusing and misinforming the public. 

Please let me explain.

According to their website on September 27th the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will be holding a meeting to:

provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment on the Route 29 Charlottesville Bypass project.

The meeting will be held at Jack Jouett Middle School from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. in an open forum format. The school is located at 210 Lambs Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22901.

Written and oral comments will be taken at the meeting. Written comments may also be submitted by Oct. 9, 2012, to Ms. Angel Deem, Environmental Division, Virginia Department of Transportation, 1221 E. Broad Street,  Richmond, VA 23219, or by email to Route29BypassEA@VDOT.Virginia.gov.

Please put “Route 29 Charlottesville Bypass Environmental Assessment” in the subject line.

It is important to note, this public input session is not mandated by Federal or State code it is an additional step VDOT is taking at the request of local officials.  The goal of the meeting is to accept feedback from the public regarding the EA.

The EA seeks to answer the question of measuring the environmental impacts, the metrics used and, if the measurements exceed acceptable levels, what mitigation will be completed.

In print and television advertisements, opponents have suggested this is the opportunity to speak out against the US 29 Bypass.  These advertisements suggest the public meeting is a hearing on the bypass itself creating an “obstacle illusion” that the outcome of this input meeting could stop the bypass. 

One Letter to the Editor suggested “The bypass will operate to our detriment for the next 50 years in terms of meeting future needs.” (John Martin Daily Progress September 24th).  Clearly Mr. Martin is not directing his comments to the EA but rather the decision to fund the roadway.

The Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club chose to focus their opposition on materials that might be permitted to be transported on the proposed roadway rather than the roadway’s direct environmental impacts:

“Presence of nuclear industries at Lynchburg suggests that radioactive materials and other goods related to nuclear industries will be transported on the Route 29 Bypass if it is built.”

Really???? The nuclear card??  And  if the Bypass is not built wouldn’t those same materials go right through the heart of the community???????

It seems equally ironic that  Morgan Butler of  the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) suggests in his September 23rd Daily Progress Letter to the Editor that  the focus of the September 27th meeting should be on roadway design not the Environmental Assessment.

In a fun, albeit inaccurate,  slide show on the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) website, Field Officer Jeff Werner suggests that six of the  “doable” projects discussed in Places29 may not be funded if the bypass goes forward.   Werner is well aware that three of the six fixes (North US29 lane expansion, Hillsdale Drive Extension, “Best Buy” Ramp) are already moving forward with actions by the Secretary of Transportation or the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) 

The inconvenient truth (to borrow a phrase from Al Gore) is that those opposed to the road can’t argue with the methods and metrics included in VDOT’s Environmental Assessment.  Instead they are rallying support and donations on a false premise regarding the meeting’s purpose. 

We fully anticipate the majority of participants in this week’s meeting will focus incorrectly on the roadway design due to the opponents’ aggressive advertising efforts. 

It is unfortunate that thanks to road blocking groups fanning the flames of self serving “obstacle illusion”, VDOT will likely not get  informed public comment on their well written Environmental Assessment.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

**Editor’s Note 9/27/12 John Martin Letter to the Editor quote corrected -nw. 

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Greene BOS Discusses MPO Membership

By. Brent Wilson, Greene County Field Officer

Stephen Williams, Executive Director for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)  came to Stanardsville to sell the Charlottesville – Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)  to the Greene County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, July 24^th.

Every 10 years, in coordination with the national census,  the MPO looks to reorganize/expand to include areas greater than 50,000 population, which now includes portions of Greene County.

Williams outlined the benefits of MPO membership:

• MPO looks to upgrade transportation ahead of demand
• MPO offers technical assistance to communities
• MPO works with VDOT and advocates for projects
• Offer demand model to review new/future traffic flows
• No cost to Greene
• Have input on Route 29 flowing from Albemarle into Greene

Several issues of concern were raised  by the supervisors:

• Greene may not become a voting member for several years
• Federal funding has to go through MPO, if Greene becomes a member
• Requires staff time to prepare for and attend meetings
• If Greene elects to join, must remain for 10 years
• Requires a commitment to do the will of majority of MPO
• Give up working directly with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

Mr. Williams invited the Greene BOS to the September meeting of the MPO Policy Board which will be held somewhere in Greene County in order for the BOS to become more familiar with the organization.

The Greene County Board of Supervisors agreed to consider the proposal.

While it seems nice to be invited to the party, the fact that Greene most likely wouldn’t have a say in the decision making process is a strong strike against joining. Greene would also give up the ability to work directly with VDOT – strike two. A ten year commitment for the test drive – strike three!

The Free Enterprise Forum believes it is important, and good government dictates, that  the BOS consider all the costs and benefits.  On balance, we continue to believe Greene (and Fluvanna) should Say “No” to the MPO.

———————————————–

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credit: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission