Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
« June 2006 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Announcements
City Council Resolution
Code of Virginia
Contracts
General Business
News Articles
Project Funding
Public Involvement
Purpose and Need
Steering Committee
Commonwealth of Virginia Links
Virginia Dept. of Transportation
Local Government Links
City of Charlottesville
Albemarle County
You are not logged in. Log in
STAMP-2025: Sensible Alternatives to the Meadow Creek Parkway
Friday, 30 June 2006
Combining Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange with Meadow Creek Parkway and McIntire Road Extended projects
Topic: Project Funding

Due to lack of funding in the Virginia FY07-12 Six-Year Improvement Program, it appears that the interchange project, the Meadow Creek Parkway, and the McIntire Road Extended projects should be combined into one project - if any of these projects are to receive Federal-aid Highway funds. Below is a letter sent to FHWA outlining the rationale for a request for combining these projects.
June 26, 2006

Mr. Kenneth Myers
Planning and Environment Team Leader
FHWA Virginia Division
400 North 8th Street
Richmond Virginia 23240
Dear Mr. Myers:

I reviewed your response to my April 4, 2005 inquiry (attached) concerning developing the Route 250 Bypass/ McIntire Road Interchange project independent of the Meadow Creek Parkway and McIntire Road Extended projects in light of recent decisions on transportation funding by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Your response indicated that the federally funded Route 250 Bypass/ McIntire Road Interchange project would not federalize the Meadow Creek Parkway or McIntire Road Extended projects on the basis of those being fully funded in Virginia’s Six-Year Improvement Program and on that basis being considered a committed project. But now, neither of these two projects satisfies this criterion. It now appears inappropriate for the interchange to be an independent Federal-aid Highway project. I recommend that you re-coordinate these projects with VDOT as a single project if in fact federal funds are to be used in preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, or construction of the interchange portion of this project.

The current FY 07-12 Six-Year Improvement Program provides no funding for either the Meadow Creek Parkway or the McIntire Road Extended project. Based on your criteria, it is clear that these two projects cannot be considered approved elements in the evaluation of future improvements. There is no commitment by the Commonwealth of Virginia to construct either the Meadow Creek Parkway or McIntire Road Extended. The current situation with only the interchange being developed as a Federal-aid Highway project appears not to be in compliance with established federal regulations and guidance on project segmentation.

Based on this lack of financial commitment by the Commonwealth of Virginia, it appears essential that the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project, the Meadow Creek Parkway project, and the McIntire Road Extended project all be considered as one integrated project with logical termini located at Rio Road to the north, and U.S. Route 250 Bypass to the south. I believe that this combination of projects should be re-coordinated immediately with VDOT and the City of Charlottesville prior to further development of any of the project elements. The purpose and need for the combined project should also be reconsidered to reflect the regional need to meet projected traffic demand between growth areas in Albemarle County north and east of downtown Charlottesville. This combined project and the recently proposed Eastern Connector project should be considered alternatives for meeting this demand.

I look forward to hearing from you concerning this request to ensure that these projects are developed consistent with Federal-aid Highway program requirements, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and section 4(f) parkland protections for McIntire Park.

Sincerely,

signature: Peter Kleeman

Peter Kleeman

From: Myers, Kenneth [Kenneth.Myers@fhwa.dot.gov]
To: Peter T. Kleeman (E-mail) [techniquest@netscape.net]
Cc: Fonseca, Roberto [Roberto.Fonseca@fhwa.dot.gov]
Sent: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:10:19 -0400
Subject: RE: Designating Localities as Lead Agency for NEPA documentation

Mr. Kleeman:

Your inquiry of April 4 has been forwarded to me for response. We have reviewed the project status and coordinated with VDOT in preparing the attached response to address your two concerns.

Sincerely,

Kenneth R. Myers
Planning & Environmental Program Manager
FHWA, Virginia Division
(804) 775-3353
Kenneth.Myers@fhwa.dot.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter T. Kleeman [mailto:techniquest@netscape.net]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 10:37 AM
To: Fonseca, Roberto; philip.shucet@vdot.virginia.gov
Subject: Designating Localities as Lead Agency for NEPA documentation

Dear Sirs:

I have reviewed the "Agreement for Project Development and Administration by the City of Charlottesville Route 250 Bypass Interchange Project" and am concerned that the City of Charlottesville will apparently be acting as the lead agency in development of the NEPA document necessary for this project. I reviewed what appear to be the relevant sections of NEPA (Section 102) and 23 CFR 771 and believe that it is not legitimate for the City to be the lead agency for NEPA development. I am also concerned that the City of Charlottesville does not have the expertise in NEPA document development and related requirements including Section 4(f) analysis essential for this Federal-aid Highway project.

I also am concerned about treating the interchange and the portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway project through the McIntire Park (a section 4(f) protected property) as separate project with the NEPA document only considering the interchange. It is my understanding that Federal Court rulings have maintained that projects of this type cannot be segmented, but rather considered in one environmental document so that the full environmental impacts of the project are provided to the public for consideration.

I would very much like to receive from you justification for allowing the City of Charlottesville to be the lead agency for development of a NEPA document on any Federal-aid Highway project, and secondly, how the segmentation of this project is not in violation of Federal Court rulings against segmentation.

Sincerely,

Peter T. Kleeman

Response to Kleeman Inquiry

One of the concerns was that the project agreement between VDOT and the City of Charlottesville would have the City acting as lead agency under NEPA. This is a misunderstanding of the contract language. We have reviewed the language in the proposed, yet unexecuted, agreement and it in no way suggests that Charlottesville would act as lead agency. FHWA will act a lead agency for NEPA, and VDOT will retain appropriate NEPA oversight of the project as a responsible statewide agency. The agreement would allow the City to administer the project, a common arrangement that is utilized in many States.

In response to the second part of the inquiry, VDOT and FHWA have reviewed the status of the Meadowcreek Parkway and the U.S. 250 interchange at McIntire Road in Charlottesville. The purpose of this review was to determine if the new federally funded U.S. 250 interchange study would federalize the Meadowcreek Parkway. Our conclusion is that it would not, based on the following:

1) Proposed projects with location approvals and funding commitments may serve as logical termini for other projects that are being considered in the planning, feasibility or early preliminary engineering phases.

2) The Meadowcreek Parkway is a state funded project that has a location approval and is fully funded in the Working Draft FY06-11 SYIP. Right of Way is scheduled to begin in December this year, and construction is scheduled to begin in FY08.

3) The funded Meadowcreek Parkway project includes an at-grade intersection at the 250 Bypass.

4) Based on above items 1-3, it is appropriate to consider the Meadowcreek Parkway as an approved element of the transportation system in the evaluation of future improvements.

5) The Department is pursuing a separate project that will evaluate the construction of an interchange at the 250 Bypass, the existing at-grade intersection with McIntire Road and the terminus of the approved location Meadowcreek Parkway. This project was a new project in the current (FY05-10) program. The project was funded for PE only ($1.25M). There are no additional funds allocated to this project in the Working Draft FY06-11 SYIP (over the next 6 years).

6) When determining if the 250 Interchange has independent utility, we must determine if it is a useable and reasonable expenditure if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made. Since the Meadowcreek Parkway will be constructed regardless of whether the interchange moves forward, the interchange is an independent project.

7) Therefore, the federal action is limited to the federal-aid interchange and federal involvement with the interchange does not federalize the Meadowcreek Parkway.


posted by Peter T. Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net

Posted by va3/stamp2025 at 11:33 AM EDT
Permalink | Share This Post

Newer | Latest | Older