ITEM #8:
HRTPO Board Meeting │ March 21, 2013 │ Agenda
I-64 PENINSULA DEIS STUDY – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
On October 24, 2012, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the I-64 Peninsula Study. The DEIS was made
available for public and agency review and comment through January 7, 2013. The HRTPO staff
submitted comments on the DEIS on December 19, 2012.
The study area is a 75 mile long segment of I-64, from I-95 (Exit 190) in Richmond to I-664 (Exit
264) in Hampton. The alternatives retained for detailed analysis in the DEIS include a No-Build
Alternative and five separate highway Build Alternatives, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Alternative 1A – adding additional general purpose lanes to the outside of the existing
general purpose lanes
Alternative 1B – adding additional general purpose lanes in the median
Alternative 2A – adding additional lanes to the outside and tolling all lanes
Alternative 2B – adding additional lanes to the median and tolling all lanes
Alternative 3 – adding managed lanes to the median
The CTB received a presentation by VDOT on the DEIS on February 20, 2013 (attached).
Although the VDOT schedule called for CTB selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative during its
March 2013 meeting, the CTB agreed to delay that action to provide the HRTPO an opportunity
to advise the CTB of the region’s preferred alternative. The HRTPO staff and the Transportation
Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) recommend a resolution by the HRTPO Board specifying
the region’s preferred alternative.
The TTAC has recommended Alternative 1A as the preferred alternative, with the caveat that
Context Sensitive Design be applied. The TTAC has furthermore recommended a phased
approach (build in fundable segments) for construction of the project. In addition, the HRTPO
staff recommends that VDOT give full consideration to widening I-64 to six lanes in the interim
by maximizing the existing right-of-way (i.e., shoulders) while meeting industry standards.
HRTPO staff further recommends that any interim solution should not preclude the permanment
widening of I-64 in the future.
The HRTPO staff has prepared a resolution (attached) for the HRTPO Board for its consideration
of selecting Alternative 1A as the preferred alternative, as well as supporting an interim solution,
as recommended by the HRTPO staff.
This item is under the Consent Agenda for approval; see Item #15-L.
Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item.
Attachment 8-A
Attachment 8-B
INTERSTATE 64 PENINSULA STUDY
Commonwealth Transportation Board
Status Briefing
Attachement 8-A
February 20, 2013
Ms. Angel Deem
VDOT Location Studies Manager
Environmental Division
I-64 PENINSULA STUDY PROCESS
Attachement 8-A
2
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
•
Purpose and Need Analysis
Capacity
Roadway deficiencies
•
Alternatives Analysis
Existing conditions
Existing limited access ROW
Distinct regions/sections
Safety
Attachement 8-A
3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT Cont.
•
Alternatives Analysis cont.
Range of preliminary alternatives
No Action (No Build)
TSM/TDM
Passenger/freight rail
Highway build alternatives (developed to meet LOS C or better)
o General purpose lanes
o Managed lanes and toll lanes (HOV, HOT, ETL, Full Toll)
Alternatives retained for detailed study in DEIS
No build
5 Highway build options:
Attachement 8-A
1A = Add General Purpose Lanes to the Outside
1B = Add General Purpose Lanes to the Median
2A = Add Additional Lanes to the Outside and Toll All Lanes
2B = Add Additional Lanes to the Median and Toll All Lanes
3 = Managed Lanes, Median Widening
4
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT Cont.
Attachement 8-A
5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT Cont.
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Category
Right of Way
Relocations
Resource/Element Assessed
Attachement 8-A
1A
1B
2A
2B
3
Rural (number of parcels)
106
81
106
81
106
Residential/Suburban Low Density (number of
parcels
418
410
418
410
413
Outlying Business/Suburban High Density (number
of parcels)
213
201
213
201
208
Central Business District (number of parcels
52
51
52
51
52
28/38
28/37
28/38
28/37
28/39
100-Year Floodplains Crossed (acres within the
limits of disturbance)
21
18
21
18
21
Public Reservoirs Crossed (number)
4
4
4
4
4
Threatened and Endangered Species
Habitat/Populations (number of species with
potential habitat within the limits of disturbance)
3
3
3
3
3
1262
1190
1262
1190
1556
13/39,376
13/39,376
13/39,376
13/39,376
12/37,321
13
13
13
13
13
Wetlands Crossed (tidal/non-tidal acres within limits
of disturbance)
Natural
Resources
Residences Impacted (number)
Noise
Contaminated
Sites
Proposed Noise Barriers (number/linear feet
Sites that potentially contain flammable, explosive,
corrosive, or toxic substances and include gas
stations, industrial sites, storage tanks, etc.)
6
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT Cont.
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
Alternative Considerations
1A
1B
2A
2B
3
Meets Purpose & Need
Possesses potential for phased construction
Possesses potential for revenue generation
Encroaches on Navy Explosive Safety Zone (5 miles adjacent to
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown property)
Requires change in current federal law and regulations to allow
for tolling of all lanes on Interstate 64
X
X
X
X
Attachement 8-A
8
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT Cont.
ALTERNATIVE 1A/1B/2A/2B
Attachement 8-A
8
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT Cont.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Attachement 8-A
9
PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
•
Location public hearings: December 11 – 13, 2012
•
•
DEIS, Technical Reports were made available for comment
•
•
226 total persons in attendance
Comment period ended January 7, 2013
Number of Comments Received: 130
•
•
•
•
Via comment sheets, emails, letters, and oral comments
119 comments received from Citizens
11 comments received from local government/state and federal agencies
When asked Which alternative do you feel best meets the needs within the corridor?
•
•
•
Attachement 8-A
•
31 in support of alternative 1A, 37 in support of alternative 1B
4 in support of alternative 2A, 10 in support of alternative 2B
15 in support of alternative 3 in support of PPTA
When asked Would you support the use of tolls as a way to finance the needed
improvements within the I-64 corridor from Richmond to Hampton Roads?
•
•
40 in support
51 not in support
10
NEXT STEPS/STUDY SCHEDULE
•
March 2013 – Commonwealth Transportation Board Decision on
Preferred Alternative
•
November 2013 – Final Environmental Impact Statement
•
2014 – Federal Highway Administration Record of Decision
Attachement 8-A
11
Attachement 8-A
HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
BOARD RESOLUTION 2013-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
ORGANIZATION SELECTING ALTERNATIVE 1A AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AS
WELL AS SUPPORTING AN INTERIM SOLUTION.
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration approved the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the I-64 Peninsula Study on October 24, 2012;
WHEREAS, the study area is a 75 mile long segment of I-64, from I-95 (Exit 190) in
Richmond to I-664 (Exit 264) in Hampton;
WHEREAS, the alternatives retained for detailed analysis in the DEIS include a No-Build
Alternative and five separate highway Build Alternatives, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Alternative 1A – adding additional general purpose lanes to the outside of the
existing general purpose lanes
Alternative 1B – adding additional general purpose lanes in the median
Alternative 2A – adding additional lanes to the outside and tolling all lanes
Alternative 2B – adding additional lanes to the median and tolling all lanes
Alternative 3 – adding managed lanes to the median
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has agreed to delay its
selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative to provide the HRTPO an opportunity to advise
the CTB of the region’s preferred alternative;
WHEREAS, at its March 6, 2013 meeting, the HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory
Committee (TTAC) recommended Alternative 1A as the preferred alternative, with the
caveat that Context Sensitive Design be applied, as well as a phased approach (build in
fundable segments) for construction of the project; and
WHEREAS, the HRTPO staff recommends that the Virginia Department of Transportation
give full consideration to widening I-64 to six lanes in the interim by maximizing the
existing right-of-way (i.e., shoulders) while meeting industry standards, and further
recommends that any interim solution should not preclude the permanment widening of I64 in the future.
Attachment 8-B
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning
Organization selects Alternative 1a as the preferred alternative, as well as supporting an
interim six-lane solution.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization
Board at its special meeting on the 21st day of March, 2013.
Molly J. Ward
Chair
Hampton Roads Transportation
Planning Organization
Dwight L. Farmer
Executive Director/Secretary
Hampton Roads Transportation
Planning Organization
Attachment 8-B