US 460 (Petersburg, VA to Suffolk, VA)

[cpzilliacus]

Bacon's Rebellion: Some Answers, More Questions about the 460 Fiasco

If you're new to the U.S. 460 Connector controversy and need a primer to bring you up to speed, I'd recommend you read the new Virginia Business cover story written by Paula Squires. She provides an digestible overview of a complex story and advances public understanding with some fresh reporting. In particular, she homes in on a central question for which I have yet to see a clear, concise explanation: How did the Virginia Department of Transportation come to pay $250 million to its public-private partner in the $1.4 billion project, US Mobility Partners, before critical wetlands permits were issued by the Army Corps of Engineers?

Squires does not provide the answer but she gets us closer to the answer. She interviewed Charlie Kilpatrick, the current highway commissioner who was deputy commissioner under the McDonnell administration.

[Mapmikey]

Town Hall meetings on this project have been announced by VDOT for late July in 5 communities...

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2014/vdot_schedules_town_hall74534.asp

Mapmikey

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post op-ed: Robert McDonnell's other big scandal: Bum deal on U.S. 460 project cost Virginia plenty

Bob McDonnell will go into history as the first of 72 Virginia governors to be convicted of corruption, but we should remember him as well for a second scandal that cost the taxpayers a ton of money.

McDonnell's curious, long-standing obsession with building a new highway parallel to U.S. 460 outside Hampton Roads led his administration to spend $300 million (and counting) without first ensuring that the project would receive necessary environmental permits.

Whoops. As some officials and outside critics had warned from the start, a government study issued last month said the federal permits will be virtually impossible to obtain because of the risk of damaging wetlands.

As a result, there is a "very low probability"  that the state will try to build the new highway, Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said. Instead, the state will carry out cheaper and less environmentally harmful improvements to the existing road stretching southeast from Petersburg to Suffolk.

[hbelkins]

When, and why, did freakin' swamps become so much of a sacred cow?

[1995hoo]

Washington Post op-ed: Robert McDonnell's other big scandal: Bum deal on U.S. 460 project cost Virginia plenty

....

I'm not sure that's really an "op-ed" because it appeared in Sunday's Metro section, rather than on the editorial page, and it was written by columnist Robert McCartney. He's another Post columnist who seems to be a professional whiner, as just about everything he writes is a complaint.

[NE2]

When, and why, did freakin' swamps become so much of a sacred cow?

Thanks, Nixon!

[formulanone]

When, and why, did freakin' swamps become so much of a sacred cow?

Well...this is a big deal in Florida, so it may be for different reasons in Virginia, thus I'm going to speak out my butt from here (as I have no engineering nor geological experience nor qualifications).

Sometimes they're a good outlet for water flow (such as natural storm water discharge), so "ruining" them could cause flooding or swampy areas to appear where they're not desirable. Swampy areas also cause roads to become unstable and bumpy a bit quicker, due to ground instability and there's additional roadbed elevation issues, costs, et cetera.

I don't think it's a "save the swamp animals issue", as much as a "did they think of the potential impacts issue".

[froggie]

When, and why, did freakin' swamps become so much of a sacred cow?

When it was discovered that they really do help with water quality....nevermind the flood-related issues that formulaone mentioned.

[hbelkins]

Just how restrictive are these regulations against encroachments on wetlands?

Here in my county, a section of road was built in the late 1980s. There are some areas at the base of some of the rock cuts that tend to hold water, and cattails have sprouted. Even if it's bone dry and has been for two weeks when a mowing cycle gets underway, the mowing crews won't cut the cattails down, even if they're using sickle or batwing mowers that work to the side of the tractor and there's no danger of the tractor getting stuck.

[froggie]

Just how restrictive are these regulations against encroachments on wetlands?

Army Corps of Engineers dictates that, as they're the ones that issue the wetlands permits.  In short, they don't like excessive wetlands impacts from construction projects, and 480 acres (the estimated amount from the 460 project...equals 3/4 of a square mile, BTW) is pretty excessive.  Also, any projects that do receive a permit must replace lost wetlands at a 2:1 ratio (2 replacement acres per 1 lost/destroyed acre), though I've heard of this "wetland credits" program that some state DOTs buy into.

[cpzilliacus]

I'm not sure that's really an "op-ed" because it appeared in Sunday's Metro section, rather than on the editorial page, and it was written by columnist Robert McCartney. He's another Post columnist who seems to be a professional whiner, as just about everything he writes is a complaint.

The paper calls what McCartney writes these days as "local opinion," so IMO what he writes qualifies as op-eds.

[Alex]

Just how restrictive are these regulations against encroachments on wetlands?

Here in my county, a section of road was built in the late 1980s. There are some areas at the base of some of the rock cuts that tend to hold water, and cattails have sprouted. Even if it's bone dry and has been for two weeks when a mowing cycle gets underway, the mowing crews won't cut the cattails down, even if they're using sickle or batwing mowers that work to the side of the tractor and there's no danger of the tractor getting stuck.

I cannot attest to Virginia's regulations, but in Delaware, when they were building the SR 1 Turnpike, they added mitigation sites to offset wetlands disrupted by the road's construction.  Another example that comes to mind is an area of wetlands created off Salem Church Road in New Castle County in the 1990s that offset wetlands filling for the new Delaware 273 alignment. I think this is common practice for most projects in the state nowadays.

[1995hoo]

Just how restrictive are these regulations against encroachments on wetlands?

Here in my county, a section of road was built in the late 1980s. There are some areas at the base of some of the rock cuts that tend to hold water, and cattails have sprouted. Even if it's bone dry and has been for two weeks when a mowing cycle gets underway, the mowing crews won't cut the cattails down, even if they're using sickle or batwing mowers that work to the side of the tractor and there's no danger of the tractor getting stuck.

I cannot attest to Virginia's regulations, but in Delaware, when they were building the SR 1 Turnpike, they added mitigation sites to offset wetlands disrupted by the road's construction.  Another example that comes to mind is an area of wetlands created off Salem Church Road in New Castle County in the 1990s that offset wetlands filling for the new Delaware 273 alignment. I think this is common practice for most projects in the state nowadays.

I don't know much about regulations, but I know a relatively small project near my house (the widening of a 0.2-mile segment of Secondary Route 611, Telegraph Road, between South Van Dorn Street and South Kings Highway) was held up for some time due to wetlands issues because the road crosses over Dogue Creek (which drains into the Potomac and, by extension, the Chesapeake) and Huntley Meadows Park is nearby to the south. Heck, wetlands issues were cited as one reason (though not the only reason) why a pedestrian sidewalk was not originally constructed alongside the newest segment of Van Dorn from King Centre Drive to Telegraph Road. (The pedestrian path shown on the map link above is not the same path as the sidewalk they later constructed.)

If a small project like that got held up by the environmental process, I have no difficulty at all accepting that the Route 460 project would face far more significant hurdles.

[cpzilliacus]

Just how restrictive are these regulations against encroachments on wetlands?

Army Corps of Engineers dictates that, as they're the ones that issue the wetlands permits.  In short, they don't like excessive wetlands impacts from construction projects, and 480 acres (the estimated amount from the 460 project...equals 3/4 of a square mile, BTW) is pretty excessive.  Also, any projects that do receive a permit must replace lost wetlands at a 2:1 ratio (2 replacement acres per 1 lost/destroyed acre), though I've heard of this "wetland credits" program that some state DOTs buy into.

VDOT used to (and may still) procure land and credits as part of what they call "wetlands banking."

Maryland did a combination of things to mitigate the wetlands that were impacted by Md. 200 - they purchased other wetlands sites (some in other subwatersheds of the Potomac River), they also did (and are still doing) a lot of stormwater management retrofits in the Anacostia River and Rock Creek watersheds.

As I understand it nearly all highway construction projects in the U.S. of any size (and the scale of the proposed U.S. 460 project was certainly big enough) must have a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (with concurrence from the USEPA), which is mandated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  I am not always a fan of either agency, but that's the law, and has been in effect for many years. 

That McDonnell (and the people working for him at VDOT) thought they could ignore Section 404 strikes me as stupid or fanciful - or maybe some of both.  At least Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton (formerly an elected official in Prince William County) should have made it very clear to McDonnell that the project was "goin' noplace fast" without the Section 404 permit.

[cpzilliacus]

Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed (from 2014-10-04): Why do bad roads keep happening?

A long-time friend recently asked me to explain how the Commonwealth of Virginia could have invested $300 million in a new road, the proposed new Route 460, and not yet turned the first shovel of dirt, or even gotten required federal and state permissions to proceed with the project. This is not just about 460: he could as easily asked about the proposed Charlottesville Bypass or the Outer Beltway in Northern Virginia.

I cite these as examples of "bad roads"  because they are expensive and they typify a single-minded, piecemeal approach to what could be elegant, environmentally and fiscally responsible solutions to improved, integrated and affordable transportation across the commonwealth. Why does this approach persist? I offer four reasons plus a context that bears on the matter.

The four direct reasons that apply are: a lack of critical thinking and analysis; a lack of timely accountability for decisions about roads; a failure to set and stick to transportation priorities; and a lack of independent oversight of the road-building process. Each is important.

[1995hoo]

I think the thing I found most interesting in that RTD piece was the old picture of I-495's Outer Loop at the I-66 interchange.

[cpzilliacus]

I think the thing I found most interesting in that RTD piece was the old picture of I-495's Outer Loop at the I-66 interchange.

Agreed.  I was not especially a fan of the article, and some of it sounded like anti-mobility propaganda straight from the PEC, but posted it because it discussed the U.S. 460 project.

[cpzilliacus]

I don't know much about regulations, but I know a relatively small project near my house (the widening of a 0.2-mile segment of Secondary Route 611, Telegraph Road, between South Van Dorn Street and South Kings Highway) was held up for some time due to wetlands issues because the road crosses over Dogue Creek (which drains into the Potomac and, by extension, the Chesapeake) and Huntley Meadows Park is nearby to the south. Heck, wetlands issues were cited as one reason (though not the only reason) why a pedestrian sidewalk was not originally constructed alongside the newest segment of Van Dorn from King Centre Drive to Telegraph Road. (The pedestrian path shown on the map link above is not the same path as the sidewalk they later constructed.)

Wetlands was cited as one of the reasons that the multi-use trail along Md. 200 is so discontiguous, an excuse that I had (and have) a very hard time with.  If the Corps can issue a Section 404 permit for a six-lane Interstate-type road, then sure as Hades they should be able to allow a trail for bikes and pedestrians alongside.

If a small project like that got held up by the environmental process, I have no difficulty at all accepting that the Route 460 project would face far more significant hurdles.

Agreed.  Though ideally Congress would (but is probably incapable of doing so) set a threshold below which some of the Section 404 requirements do not apply or are made much less demanding. 

[74/171FAN]

Well VDOT has made a recommendation on the portion from Zuni to US 58.  I guess they are splitting up the project now for whatever reason.

Basically the recommendation being presented to the CTB involves a new road from US 58 to west of Windsor (the location seems to be roughly located about where Alternative 3 is east of US 258).  The rest of current US 460 to west of Zuni would be widened to a 4-lane divided highway including a replacement bridge over the Blackwater River.

[froggie]

If you intended a link there, it didn't work.

Here's a link to the VDOT press release.

[cpzilliacus]

Well VDOT has made a recommendation on the portion from Zuni to US 58.  I guess they are splitting up the project now for whatever reason.

Basically the recommendation being presented to the CTB involves a new road from US 58 to west of Windsor (the location seems to be roughly located about where Alternative 3 is east of US 258).  The rest of current US 460 to west of Zuni would be widened to a 4-lane divided highway including a replacement bridge over the Blackwater River.

Richmond Times-Dispatch: State, federal transportation officials identify shorter, cheaper alternative to improve U.S. 460 in southeastern Virginia

State and federal transportation officials have determined what could be a shorter, cheaper and environmentally permissible alternative to the proposed $1.4 billion U.S. 460 improvement project.

The Virginia Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have identified what appears to be "the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative"  to improve the U.S. 460 corridor in southeastern Virginia at a cost of $375 million to $425 million.

The recommended alternative would improve 17 miles of U.S. 460 from Suffolk to west of Zuni, state and federal officials said Monday.

A new four-lane divided highway would be built from the U.S. 460/U.S. 58 interchange in Suffolk to west of Windsor. From west of Windsor to west of Zuni, the existing U.S. 460 would be upgraded to a four-lane divided highway and include a new bridge across the Blackwater River to eliminate longstanding flooding problems. No improvements to U.S. 460 would be made west of Zuni, VDOT Commissioner Charles Kilpatrick said.

[Mapmikey]

In the Feb 2015 meeting the CTB officially adopted the jan 2015 recommendation to build a new 460 alignment west from the Suffolk bypass, crossing existing 460 then bypassing to the north of Windsor and returning to the existing 460 before Zuni, with roadway improvements to about Zuni.  They have officially adopted the "no-build" option from Zuni west to I-295.

The new roadway portion of this will be limited access.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2015/feb/reso/Resolution_Agenda_Item_12.pdf

Unrelated to this, the CTB also truncated the east end of VA 205Y by 50 feet (from the last business driveway to the dead end)...

Mapmikey

[froggie]

Not sure I fully agree with a "no build" west of Zuni....unless that doesn't preclude making improvements (i.e. shoulders or a median, even if a flush median) west of Zuni.

[cpzilliacus]

Opinion article from TidewaterNews.com: Fundamental step skipped on 460

With wind chill temperature values dropping below zero around most of Virginia this week, perhaps the Commonwealth Transportation Board chose on Thursday to put the cart before the horse in an effort to give the battered old nag a bit of shelter.

Whatever their reason for doing so, commissioners jumped the gun by approving a preliminary plan for a 17-mile upgrade to Route 460. There are many questions about the project that will be answered during the environmental review and permitting process. But one vital question seems to have been missed altogether in the rush to rescue an earlier version of the project that would have stretched 55 miles from Suffolk to Petersburg: Does the new version of the project meet the needs advanced for the project to begin with?

When the McAuliffe administration began looking at the former Route 460 project that had been left by its predecessor, it found that $300 million had been spent with no visible benefit and that there was little likelihood the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would ever approve the road, anyway, as it would have displaced hundreds of acres of wetlands.

[Mapmikey]

Not sure I fully agree with a "no build" west of Zuni....unless that doesn't preclude making improvements (i.e. shoulders or a median, even if a flush median) west of Zuni.

I would interpret their phrasing "...there is no intention to pursue corridor improvements west of the
recommended Preferred Alternative. " to mean no improvements but I also agree some spot improvements are surely warranted between I-295 and Zuni...

Mapmikey