2014-05-27May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May
27, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The
meeting was adjourned from May 14, 2014.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, Deputy County Attorney, Greg
Kamptner, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments regarding the Route 29 Advisory
Panel’s Route 29 Recommended Concept Solutions Package, (Philip Shucet, The Philip A. Shucet
Company; and John Lynch, Culpeper District Administrator). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20
and May 27, 2014)
Ms. Dittmar introduced John Lynch, VDOT Culpeper District Administrator, and Philip Shucet of
the Philip A. Shucet Company and a former VDOT Commissioner.
_____
Ms. Dittmar stated that the purpose of the meeting was to receive comments from the Route 29
Advisory Panel, which is a “concept solutions” package and would be the same presentation that was
presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) at their official meeting earlier that month,
held in Charlottesville.
Mr. Philip Shucet addressed the Board, stating that he modified the use of tenses in the
presentation, but it was mostly the same as far as recommendations. Mr. Shucet said the advisory panel
formed by Secretary of Transportation, Aubrey Layne, was a 10-person advisory panel with six elected
representatives from the County. He said panel members included Ms. Dittmar and the mayors of
Charlottesville, Culpeper, Lynchburg, Danville, and Warrenton – with Danville and Lynchburg sending city
council representatives instead of mayors. Mr. Shucet said there were also four organizations
represented, including the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Charlottesville-
Albemarle MPO, the Lynchburg Regional Chamber of Commerce, and the Southern Environmental Law
Center. He stated that the panel met four times, at two-week intervals, March 27, April 10, April 24 and
May 8 and, at the consent of the panel, all of the meetings were held in Charlottesville – which helped with
public outreach. Mr. Shucet said Secretary Layne emphasized transparency, and everyone has their own
view as to good methods of public participation, adding that the panel discussions were open to the public
although there was limited seating, however, two overflow rooms were made available by video
conference; all of the meetings were streamed live on the internet, and that’s why it was important to stay
in a fixed place at the research council. He noted that there were 820+ views of the meeting while they
were taking place, and they were all videoed and available as a podcast on VDOT’s YouTube channel –
with a total of 900 views combined. Mr. Shucet said VDOT also received public comment through a
project website, “route29solutions.org,” and approximately 160 comments were received, most of which
fell into the “I don’t like the bypass” or “I like the bypass” categories.
Mr. Shucet said he presented an agenda for each two-hour meeting, and the panel conducted
their work within that timeframe. He stated that, at their March 27 meeting, the panel focused on success
factors and measurement, as well as potential solutions which would address those factors. Mr. Shucet
said there were 25 success factors identified at that meeting with 16 potential solutions. He stated that,
between the first and second meeting, there was a team of technical experts – engineers, planners,
environmental scientists – to look at those success factors and potential solutions, and condense them
into primary points for consideration. He said, at the second meeting, the success factors were
consolidated down to eight – from 25. Mr. Shucet said, at the third meeting, the panel looked at the
technical aspects of four proposed roadway solutions, further discussing engineering issues, cost, and
right of way issues. He stated that, at the panel’s fourth and final meeting, a solution package of projects
was presented – and that’s what went forward to the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
Mr. Shucet said the eight success factors taken out of the 25 include: improve local traffic
mobility, with about 85% of traffic on Route 29 between 250 and the river being local; improve through
mobility with as little disruption as possible by addressing the worst congestion areas and the highest
crash locations and minimize impacts and footprints; address multiple modes and incorporate technology
where possible; deliver or be substantially underway within four years; and stay within a $200 million
budget with reasonable return on investment. He stated that the four potential proposed solutions were
basic variations on the theme of two basic packages: throughways and parallel roads. He said package
one is a throughway/expressway low-build, which would take existing Route 29 and convert an existing
lane in each direction into a throughway, with left turns eliminated at many intersections and access
management used along with express bus service and improved bicycle and pedestrian mobility. Mr.
Shucet said those access and alternate transit options are carried throughout each option. He stated that
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
the cost for package one is estimated to be $50-100 million and isn’t expected to take any new right of
way.
Mr. Shucet reported that the second option would be an expressway high-build and, rather than
convert an existing lane, through traffic would be physically separated from local traffic – and once that
traffic got into the expressway, it would not get out of those lanes until it was across the river and on its
way. Mr. Shucet said this option would require construction of four interchanges on Route 29: one each at
250, Hydraulic, Rio and Airport Road. He stated that this option would also include the alternative transit
and access management amenities previously mentioned and, because of the higher build, the cost would
be approximately $250 million to $300 million particularly around the interchange areas.
Mr. Shucet said the third option is a parallel road, low-build project that would involve building out
projects that are currently included in VDOT’s six-year improvement program – the Hillsdale Extension
project, the Best Buy ramp, the 29 North widening, and the installation of an adaptive signal system. He
said this option would complete those projects; add construction of the Berkmar extension from Hilton
Heights to Town Center Drive, and the alternate amenities. He stated that this option is estimated at
$100-200 million, and was not expected to take any new right of way.
Mr. Shucet reported that the fourth and last option was a parallel road high-build package,
including everything in the low-build option plus interchanges at 29/250, Hydraulic, Rio and Airport Road –
and overpasses at Greenbrier, Hilton Heights, Ashwood and Timberwood. He said this package is
estimated to cost $250-350 million, with some new right of way anticipated.
Mr. Shucet said, when Secretary Layne came on March 27 to address the panel, he stated to the
group that they were trying to fix two things: to start addressing mobility through the corridor, and
congestion in the corridor. Mr. Shucet said the panel’s charge was clearly focused locally as well as for
the through traffic, and the recommendation is not any one of those four presented – as he developed a
recommendation that is a bit of a hybrid. He stated that the package was not unanimously endorsed by
the 10 panel members, and the recommendation is not one of the throughway options or expressway
options, but is a modified parallel roads option.
Mr. Shucet said the first piece of the recommendation is to fully fund the projects already in
VDOT’s six-year improvement plans, which have about $18.8 million allocated to them and a
recommendation to allocate an additional $43 million to fully fund them. He explained that they include the
widening of Route 29 to the north, construction of the Hillsdale extension, construction of the Best Buy
ramp, and the implementation of the adaptive signal system. Mr. Shucet said the recommendation also
includes a southern extension of the Hillsdale project from Hydraulic to Holiday Drive and, for an additional
$10 million; Hillsdale would be fully built out from Holiday Drive to Rio Road. He stated that another
addition would be construction of the full Berkmar extension from Rio to Hollymead Town Center at a cost
of $54 million. To make these two parallel roads work together in a meaningful and productive way, he
said the recommendation includes the construction of a grade-separated intersection at Rio Road. Mr.
Shucet noted that, with the inclusion of the additional piece of Hillsdale, Berkmar extended, and Rio Road,
that adds another $145 million to the solution package. He said the solution also includes $10 million to
do some preliminary engineering studies at Hydraulic Road, to help work on a potential solution there.
Mr. Shucet said another recommendation is to fund 25% of a second train set for the Lynchburg
to D.C. line, or $5 million of a $20 million total cost for that line. He summarized that the
recommendations include the six-year improvement plan projects, the widening of 29, the Best Buy ramp,
the Hillsdale extension, the adaptive signals, an additional piece of Hillsdale Extension to finish building it
out, Berkmar Drive Extended, a grade-separated intersection at Rio and 29, $10 million for preliminary
engineering and study of the Hydraulic Road intersection, and a $5 million contribution toward a second
eight-car train set for the Lynchburg line. Mr. Shucet said the total package cost is $203 million, and
Secretary Layne had stipulated a range of approximately $220 million.
Mr. Shucet reported that these projects and this recommendation represent “nothing magical,” as
these projects are not new and have been studied almost continuously since the 1970s. He said the
projects are included in VDOT’s six year plan, the MPO’s transportation improvement plan, the Places 29
work done locally, as well as the MPO’s fiscally constrained long-range plan. He stated that, in 1979 when
work started on the environmental impact statement, there was consideration of projects on Route 29 and,
in August 1985, the MPO adopted the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study which included the
grade separation at Rio; there were hearings in 1986 and 1990 and, in 1990, the Commonwealth
Transportation Board adopted a resolution that included the interchange at Rio. He said it is important to
take a closer look at the grade-separated intersection at Rio, because it’s understandable that people
would need to have more detail.
Mr. Shucet presented digital photographic renderings developed based on the underlying
engineering for the interchange, and noted the view of the approach from the south to Rio Road. He
commented on a rendering depicting traffic movement through the intersection, noting that through traffic
continued moving through the intersection without co-mingling with local traffic. Mr. Shucet emphasized
that 85% of traffic today is local and there are a number of lanes available to it – and, under the new
scenario, it would have the same number of turn lanes available for accessing local businesses around
the interchange. He said through traffic with no plans to use the intersection would be taken out of the mix
and travel unimpeded, and the interchange is kept intentionally tight with separation intending to get
through traffic moving with local traffic accessing the area as necessary. Mr. Shucet stated that the grade
separation at Rio Road maintains the same number of turn lanes, eliminates three signals for through
traffic: Rio, Fashion Square, and Albemarle Square. He said it maintains three full access points for
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
Fashion Square Mall – one from Route 29 and two from Rio Road – and the one existing access point on
Route 29 would become right in/right out.
Mr. Shucet reported that the Rio Road grade separation cost estimate is $81 million and includes
sufficient funding to ensure an efficient design as well as construction, and includes aesthetic amenities
such as plantings. He stated that the act of separating traffic and turning it loose on the newly grade-
separated intersection and through traffic is not a process of years, but one of months. He said it wouldn’t
happen overnight, and there would be some disruption – but it would be manageable adding that it will be
very important to having those businesses involved during the development process.
Mr. Shucet revisited the eight success factors and stated that, in terms of improving local mobility,
all of the projects add to improvement of local mobility for the 85% of traffic that is going to remain within
the corridor. He said the Best Buy ramp, the grade-separated intersection at Rio Road, the 29 North
widening, the Hydraulic study, and the adaptive signals all serve to improve through mobility. Mr. Shucet
said the 29/250/Hydraulic/Rio areas are the worst congested areas in the corridor, with Hydraulic being
worse than Rio. He stated that, while each project would need to go through an appropriate
environmental study phase, because they are largely contained within existing right of way, the
environmental process is much simpler and more straightforward than if it were a new location or involved
a total rebuild of Route 29. Mr. Shucet mentioned that these projects have been studied and vetted
through numerous public processes.
Mr. Shucet said another of the success factors was to “address multiple modes and technology,”
and the adaptive signals incorporate this new technology, and the partial contribution to the Amtrak train
set represents support for an additional mode. He stated that these projects can be substantially
underway within four years and are slightly over budget but not much beyond the $200 million limit. Mr.
Shucet said these projects meet the criteria of “reasonable return on taxpayer dollars,” but not everyone
agrees with that – and that’s important to recognize. He presented two statements which he said were
largely developed by the cities of Danville, Lynchburg, and the Lynchburg Regional Chamber of
Commerce: “The representatives from the cities of Danville, Lynchburg, and the Lynchburg Regional
Chamber do not support the solution package. They support a package that includes a Hydraulic Road
grade-separated intersection, and would shift the funds from the northern extension of Berkmar Drive and
the new Rivanna River bridge as a contribution to building a Hydraulic Road grade-separated intersection.”
He said the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce representative did not support the
construction of both the Rio or Hydraulic interchanges, and encouraged funding for consideration of a
future alternative highway beyond the limits of the current Western Bypass.
Mr. Shucet presented information on why Rio Road mattered to the traffic equation, and why it
was important that it be viewed as an integral piece of the total solution package. He presented data on
“level of service” from A to F as an indicator of operational functioning and, currently, the Rio Road
intersection in its existing condition operates at a “D” level of service – but with modest growth on Route
29, the intersection would deteriorate for both local and through traffic and, by 2035, it would be at “one of
the severe levels of F.” Mr. Shucet said this would create constant stop and go traffic, and was not
desirable for a major thoroughfare in terms of mobility, economics, etc. He stated that splitting the
intersection into a grade-separated interchange would mean that local traffic would deteriorate a little bit
over time – which is typical with gradual growth in an area – but would yield a very acceptable level of
operation at that intersection through 2025. He said through traffic would then be unimpeded and would
be move smoothly through the intersection. Mr. Shucet referenced a diagram provided, pointing out
where the benefits would be for local traffic and for local and through traffic. He said it was important to
be “careful” at Hydraulic, because it isn’t as straightforward as the Rio Road project. He said Hydraulic
can be complex, adding that improvements there shouldn’t be considered without contemplating those
impacts on 29 and 250, and emphasized that it was imperative to deliver on Rio flawlessly in the short
term before even thinking about something else. Mr. Shucet stated that it’s important to have a robust
public and business engagement process, not just with Rio but also as they think about Hydraulic – which
he thinks may fold into the new state prioritization process, and have more impact on funding allocation
than previously assumed.
Mr. Shucet said he had a few additional recommendations which he left with the Secretary and the
CTB, and feels it is important for the CTB and the MPO to consider the package in its entirety. He stated
that this isn’t a “pick and choose menu” but is a project with multiple facets, and all parties must continue
to engage in effective long-range transportation planning. Mr. Shucet said, even though they included
transit as a part of each packet, it wasn’t included as a specific funding recommendation because it’s a
function which the localities need to continue to engage in with the Department of Rail and Public
Transportation. He stated that, if there’s a meaningful transit project, it should be funded through the
normal funding channels. Mr. Shucet noted that it’s a CTB policy to consider safe bicycle and pedestrian
elements as part of every project, and the same holds true with access management policies as governed
by state regulations – which should be used to protect the integrity of Route 29 and Berkmar Drive
Extended. He said land use planning must be wise and progress in a way which gives maximum value
from roads. He stated that it’s essential for a panel of involved business owners, community leaders, and
other constituents to be formed and participate in delivery of the Rio Road grade-separated intersection
project, not just during construction but now, by helping to develop concepts for design, particularly in
terms of maintenance and protection of traffic. Mr. Shucet said that discussion shouldn’t be whether or
not they’re going to do it, but how to do it and how to do it effectively. He stated that VDOT must deliver
Rio Road flawlessly, and there are many examples nationwide and excellent contractors in the state who
know how to deliver this work.
Mr. Shucet said he would eliminate the Western Bypass at this meeting tonight, because it is not a
value to mobility or transportation, and would not ever be used for a future transportation corridor. He
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
stated that it needs to be sold and the “wound needs to get healed” so they can move on productively and
do what’s necessary to promote mobility in the 29 corridor. Mr. Shucet emphasized that access and
mobility have never harmed the economy of an important transportation corridor – but congestion has –
and they still have an opportunity to get ahead of that in an effective and meaningful manner. He thanked
Ms. Dittmar for serving on the panel, and thanked the Board for attending the meetings and allowing him
to appear before the Board to speak.
Ms. Dittmar asked if Board members had any questions prior to opening the public hearing.
Mr. Boyd said one of the objections to the Western Bypass was that the data was old, yet the
studies Mr. Shucet is quoting are also old – some of them dating back to the 70s and 80s. He also asked
if Mr. Shucet had ever looked at the original Meadow Creek Parkway study, which brought that road
further north as a “State Street” extension and could have served as an alternative to an interchange at
Rio Road.
Mr. Shucet responded that they had reviewed all the data from previous studies and their
technical team determined what data could be pulled into the future. While a lot of that work had been
done in the past, he said a considerable amount of work had been done in the 2000s – which remains
relevant and applicable to the projects being looked at currently. Mr. Shucet said, if anything, there was
an excess of data but a lack of knowledge as to how to use it, and they have now been able to convert
that information into knowledge which is directly applicable to these projects. He stated that the Meadow
Creek extension was considered but, by separating the traffic at the Rio intersection and constructing
Hillsdale and Berkmar, they will have effectively created a network which will be available for use and will
pull traffic off of Route 29. He said any additional capacity which takes traffic off of 29 benefits both local
and through traffic, so Rio is a key piece of the recommendation.
Mr. Boyd asked how many trips per day would be taken down Hillsdale Drive or Rio Road, which
will serve as a “de-facto bypass” by diverting thousands of cars down those roads. He said they’ve put a
lot of traffic calming measures in place on those roads, and he wondered if they were going to convert
them into the equivalent of an expressway by running them through Dominion Power or Kroger to Route
250.
Mr. Shucet explained that the design of the parallel roads will facilitate mobility in a way that is
respectful to the traffic calming and the development which already exists in the area. He emphasized
that the Rio Road intersection needs to be improved right now, regardless of other improvements and,
once they deliver that with the parallel road network, it benefits both local and through traffic.
Ms. Palmer asked him to review the sequencing of Berkmar Drive Extended, the bridge, and the
Rio Road interchange. Mr. Shucet said he would have VDOT answer that specifically, but commented
that the sequencing of the roadways is an important part of the maintenance of traffic plans while different
sections of the project package are being delivered.
Mr. John Lynch addressed the Board and stated that they would look at this as an overall
program, and sequence based on which projects could be delivered to help maintain traffic flow.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was any reason to assume that Hydraulic could be part of the current
funding stream, instead of being subject to House Bill 2. Mr. Shucet said, if any projects included in the
next six-year plan which will be adopted in June, those projects will not go through the prioritization
process of House Bill 2 – so if more money were allocated to another project, it would not go through the
prioritization. As part of the recommendation package, he said the money for preliminary engineering or
studies would be part of the six-year improvement plan, but everything else would have to go through the
statewide prioritization process.
Ms. McKeel asked for an explanation of the process involving the MPO and the CTB, who would
be voting on the package, and why it would be important to view it collectively.
Mr. Shucet explained that two things must happen before VDOT can spend money on a project,
and they aren’t exclusive as they both must happen. He said they must be in the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization’s fiscally-constrained long-range plan, and areas of a
certain size are required by federal law to have an MPO. Mr. Shucet stated that the fiscally constrained
six-year plan means that you can’t just throw projects into a plan, you must demonstrate that you can pay
for them. He said VDOT’s Commonwealth Transportation Board must allocate money for a project and,
just because a project is in the MPO’s six-year plan, doesn’t mean the CTB will allocate funding to it. Mr.
Shucet said the Commonwealth Transportation Board has members appointed by the Governor and they
serve at his will, with one member representing each of VDOT’s nine construction districts, in addition to
several at-large members. He said the MPO must have a project in their fiscally-constrained long-range
plan, the CTB has to allocate money to the projects in the VDOT six-year improvement program, and then
a project can move forward.
Ms. McKeel said Board members are receiving directives from constituents that they should do
everything but the Rio interchange, and asked him to comment on the probability of them receiving
funding for any of these projects since they are grouped as a package. Mr. Shucet said he believes the
Secretary of Transportation considers this a package, and not a menu option. He stated that he wouldn’t
expect a favorable outcome of funding these projects if they weren’t all included, and it’s important that
they be viewed as a package.
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Dittmar asked if the community engagement process could start immediately, before the
contracts are issued. Mr. Shucet said the process should definitely start before contracts, as those are
just the paper agreements and the engagement of the community, businesses and local officials actually
constitutes what they are going to do. He said, in his experience, small groups tend to work better than
larger groups, and they need to be representative of people who have direct interest in Rio and the project
package – and should include people who are excited about it as well as those who are not. Mr. Shucet
stated that it’s important that people have input by the time VDOT puts a construction package out, so that
they are aware of what’s going to happen – and that process should begin soon. He said the design
hearings have to happen, as they are requirements, but what he’s speaking about is involvement which
would occur much earlier and, if this package is included in the MPO’s fiscally-constrained long range plan
and if funds are allocated to the package in June by the CTB, then July is not too early to start.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the grade-separated interchanges were anticipated by engineering to be
completed within months, or if it would be years. Mr. Shucet explained, as far as switching traffic over and
physically separating the intersection, that work could be delivered in months – not years. He said there
would need to be preliminary work done to identify and move utilities, but there would not be nine or ten
years of construction necessary on Route 29 under any circumstances.
Mr. Sheffield asked if that would be the case because they could do some of the construction at
night. Mr. Shucet said it wasn’t just because of that, and it could be a sensitive local issue which would
depend on ordinances and policies related to that type of work. He stated that the other reason that
projects can be delivered more quickly is that, given the right environment and processes, contractors
know how to do the work from the outset.
Mr. Sheffield stated that Mr. Shucet had served as VDOT Commissioner under Governor Warner
and had a reputation for completing projects under budget, within time lines, and cleaning up the
department so that projects were delivered as promised.
Mr. Shucet said their team stopped making excuses and focused on delivering projects on time
and on budget, and VDOT has a very good record of continuing to do that – with Mr. Lynch, his
administrators and construction team deserving credit for that.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Lynch to provide recent examples in the state so that they can get an idea
of what to expect locally. Mr. Lynch said he had been overseeing the multi-billion dollar mega project
program for VDOT and, in Northern Virginia, they recently delivered the I-495 express lane, which was a
14-mile, $1.4 billion project including the reconstruction of 10 interchanges, 52 bridges and a highly
congested corridor. He stated that this also included arterial and secondary roads which crossed the
beltway, some of which carry two to three times the volume of Route 29, and they were able to do that
successfully in almost every location. Mr. Lynch said they worked specifically with the Route 123/Tyson
Corner area business owners to ensure that holiday traffic wasn’t disrupted, and they are confident they
can deliver those kinds of projects.
Ms. Palmer asked how long it took to complete that project. Mr. Lynch stated that the overall
project was a four-year construction program totaling $1.4 billion, with phased construction in conjunction
with the Dulles rail project through that interchange. He said the I-495 bridge over Route 123 took an
extended period of time because of the lane restrictions, and they had to work with businesses in the area
to minimize impacts while they closed down 123 to do the construction.
Mr. Boyd said he had about two pages of questions, but suggested that they get on with the public
hearing.
Ms. McKeel commented that it’s the intent of this Board to make the businesses as strong as
possible during this period of construction, and felt that it was critical for VDOT to work with the Board as it
reaches out to businesses.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Ms. Mallek stated that the speakers would be limited to two minutes, given the number of
speakers present, and they would be signaled as to when their time was about to expire.
Mr. Brad Dumont addressed the Board, stating that he represents the Shops at Stonefield, and
said his firm appreciates the challenges faced by the Board in making these road decisions. He said his
priority as a representative of those businesses is to protect their interests, but overall, they support the
proposed program. Mr. Dumont said the sequencing of projects seems slightly unclear, as does the
process by which businesses will provide input and also how traffic will be managed during the process.
Mr. Trip Pollard addressed the Board, stating that he works for the Southern Environmental Law
Center and heads up the Land and Community Program. He said he served on the advisory panel that
developed these recommendations. Mr. Pollard thanked the Board, Governor McAuliffe, and Secretary
Layne for their interest in moving forward with better alternatives to the now defunct bypass proposal. He
said there was definitely some compromise in developing this package, but overall it represents a major
step forward and an effective balance of projects which the community has identified for decades. Mr.
Pollard said there have been a number of studies over the past few decades showing how im portant it is
to have a parallel road network, as well as to address the two most congested interchanges at Hydraulic
and Rio if they are to build an effective transportation network. He said many of these projects have
appeared in a variety of state, local and MPO plans for years – and these are critical in addressing both
local traffic, which is the vast majority, and through traffic. Mr. Pollard stated that the SELC shares
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
concerns about impacts during construction, and all elements of the package must be well-designed and
accomplished with significant public input. He said he has been working on proposals to improve traffic
on Route 29 for the past 20 years, and this is the best opportunity they’ve had in a long time to address
these problems.
Mr. Bob McAdams addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Rio District and
supports the package – and also the process and speed by which it is proceeding. He said, with the
sequencing of the projects, it’s important to get the parallel roads done as quickly as possible so people
can get into the habit of getting to their stores without going on Route 29, and that will help sustain the
businesses during construction disruptions. Mr. McAdams stated that the completion of the John Warner
Parkway would change things, and it would become a desirable way to get from the 29 North area directly
to Charlottesville’s downtown. He said the changes in traffic flow, because of the Meadowcreek Parkway,
must be taken into account when they do the planning and the grade-separated interchange at Rio and, as
part of the Hydraulic engineering study, they need a comprehensive origin destination traffic analysis, so
they can determine where people are getting onto the corridor, and where they’re leaving. Mr. McAdam s
said economic development east around town is affecting traffic flow, and will help better meet needs in
the future.
Mr. Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board, stating that the FEF has
been a long time participant and a vocal critic of the Places 29 plan, and tonight’s vote on the “Shucet
solution” is a first step. He said the expressway vote tonight will be remembered as forever changing the
character and viability of Albemarle’s main street and economic engine. Mr. Williamson stated that some
businesses will relocate and recover, but some will not, and he likened the situation to that in Santa
Barbara, where lights on U.S. 101 were removed in favor of an elevated highway which cut off downtown
from the beach area. He said, after 20 years of economic depression, their micro-economy is finally
booming. Mr. Williamson stated that a similar dynamic occurred in Gainesville. He said no government
program would solve this problem, and the “Shucet expressway” would cause some businesses to fail.
Mr. Williamson said Mr. Shucet is channeling Monty Hall [“Let’s Make a Deal”] when he says that the CTB
and the MPO have the choice to endorse all of his solutions by the end of the summer, or lose the money
to another part of the Commonwealth. He stated that, with the City having two of the five votes on the
MPO, and the VDOT representative duty-bound to vote in favor of the department, it appears that the
expressway has been “expertly railroaded” through the community.
Mr. Spencer Gay addressed the Board, stating that he is totally in favor of the package as
presented, and noted that one thing which hasn’t been mentioned much is the importance of “selling the
bypass.” He said, without that step, this could derail other projects and put them back at square one. Mr.
Gay encouraged the Board to sell the bypass, raise the funds needed to study the Hydraulic intersection,
and get the deal done.
Mr. Bill Tucker addressed the Board, stating that he is from the Jack Jouett District and has lived
in Albemarle County for 46 years. He stated that he owns several commercial properties on the Route 29
corridor and operates two businesses on Rio Road near Route 29, which together employ over 50 people.
Mr. Tucker said the Chamber of Commerce, in condemning any improvements to the Rio Road
intersection, does not speak for him – and several businesses near the Rio Road/29 intersection are in
favor of the entire Route 29 panel’s solutions, including the Rio Road interchange. Mr. Tucker said,
because his businesses are located on each side of Route 29, he crosses that road numerous times
during the week and, if anyone were against something that slowed down the travel, it would be him. He
stated that there are several other ways to cross Route 29, which – even if the improvements were
happening on Rio Road – would allow him access to both businesses. Mr. Tucker said, with Hillsdale
Drive, Greenbrier, Berkmar, Woodbrook and Hilton Heights completed, that will allow an easy flow of
traffic, none of which would be affected without the improvements at Rio Road. He stated that what the
Chamber is forgetting is that the current congestion on Route 29 is already hurting businesses, and all of
the improvements suggested by Mr. Shucet will improve the flow of traffic on Route 29, which will help
these businesses, and they should all support the panel’s recommendations and encourage them to begin
as soon as possible. He said, now that the bypass is defunct, he would encourage the Board to direct
VDOT to sell the right of way properties back, which would immediately impact Albemarle County tax rolls.
Ms. Ellie Tucker addressed the Board, stating that she has been a resident of the County for 38
years and is a member of the Places 29 Advisory Council. She stated that she supports all of the
recommendations of the Route 29 Advisory Panel. She said she attended or watched online each
meeting of that group, and they finally have solutions which will work. Ms. Tucker said the solutions
cannot be cherry-picked, as the recommendations are a package and each part needs to be included.
She stated that it’s hard for her to understand how the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Chamber of
Commerce, which purports to be working for area businesses, can be working so hard against them. Ms.
Tucker asked why the Chamber didn’t want improvements on Route 29, and noted that they were putting
out statements which insinuate that building the interchanges at Rio Road would result in the potential loss
of up to 20,000 jobs. She asked how this could be, when the top 10 employers in the County are UVA, the
County of Albemarle, Martha Jefferson Hospital, UVA Health Services, State Farm, the U.S. Department
of Defense, Northrup Grumman, PVCC, GE, and Walmart – and she can’t imagine that those employees
would lose their jobs because of the Rio Road interchange. Ms. Tucker said the Chamber of Commerce –
along with its partner, The Daily Progress – is “sadly out of touch with reality,” and seems to be driven by a
handful of frustrated bypass supporters who will stop at nothing in their animosity at the removal of the
antiquated bypass plan by the Federal Highway Administration. Ms. Tucker thanked Mr. Shucet for his
important work, and the Board for hearing the public on this matter.
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Tom Olivier addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Samuel Miller District and
stating that Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP) supports the proposed changes to
the Route 29 corridor.
Mr. John Martin addressed the Board, by stating that the public interest would be served by its
endorsement of the Route 29 plan as presented. Mr. Martin said he is mindful of southside and its long-
standing desire for a Charlottesville bypass, but these fellow residents of the Commonwealth will ultimately
conclude that the plan presented is much preferable to a bypass, which failed to satisfy federal standards
in terms of definition of purpose and need. He stated that the current recommended plan is multi-faceted,
sophisticated, intelligent, and serves to improve the efficiency of Route 29 – rather than neglecting it, as
the bypass option would have done. Mr. Martin said he is also mindful and dubious of statements of fear
regarding Route 29 business activity during construction, fear of business disruption and ability to survive.
He stated that, as free enterprises, each business is experienced at managing risk, and temporary
inconvenience to businesses in proximity to road improvement projects is a foreseeable risk subject to
management – a cost of doing business in any commercial corridor. Mr. Martin said this community’s free
enterprises are strong, with some already having experience in managing risks associated with past Route
29 construction projects. He stated that it is in the nature of the free enterprise system that businesses
which do not plan and manage prospective risks could fail, but there is no reason for that here – nor is
there any reason for consideration of governmental subsidies for these free enterprises. Mr. Martin said
success will come with cooperation between businesses and local and state governments, and by
maintaining public trust and good will – and, in the end when construction is complete, local businesses
will thrive as never before and a new connectivity with southside will be forged.
Ms. Katharine Welch addressed the Board, stating that she has lived just north of the intersection
of Rio Road and 29 North for 23 years. She stated that she attended or listened to all of Mr. Shucet’s
panel presentations and came prepared to encourage the Board to leave Rio and 29 alone, however, she
is now convinced of the merits of the improvements. Ms. Welch said she is concerned about the express
bus service and bicycle/pedestrian elements of the plan because, as a frequent bus rider and member of
the Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) advisory board, she is disappointed that those components were
deleted without explanation – however, Mr. Shucet has asked the Board to keep those in mind with any of
the four plans, so she is comfortable with that too.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Chamber of Commerce, stated that
he hoped to be an instrument of peace but wasn’t sure he was always successful in that. Mr. Hulbert said
the Board should “sell the bypass” back and support the six doable projects to help local and through
traffic – but should not proceed with the recommended Rio or Hydraulic projects as they will be
devastating to businesses and to the people who work in those businesses, as well as the community at
large. He stated that it is unfortunate that both he and the Chamber have been maligned simply because
they disagreed with a piece of the recommendations, and he was skeptical as to whether that was a good
way to lead an organization.
Mr. Chuck Lebo addressed the Board, stating that he has lived in the Rio District for almost 40
years and owns several properties in the Route 29 entrance corridor. He said his company manages over
a half-million square feet of property in the corridor, and many of the people he associates with are in
agreement with most of the goals of the package – widening Route 29, the parallel roads, the Best Buy
ramp, and the signalization of traffic lights on Route 29. Mr. Lebo stated that he does, however, have a
real problem with the proposed overpass at Rio Road, which could lead to another overpass at Hydraulic
Road, and ultimately to an expressway. He said he has served on the County’s Architectural Review
Board for 13 years, where they have required numerous businesses to spend extensive amounts of
money in landscaping their properties to make them more appealing to the public. Mr. Lebo stated that he
had initiated the tree median project on Route 29 many years ago, working with Charlotte Humphris, and
there are over 100 trees now. Mr. Lebo said he and Ms. Humphris put together a public/private
partnership to make their “main street” more attractive, and if they start putting in an expressway with
“Jersey barriers,” road widening, and cones everywhere, they will lose all of that landscaping and be like
every other community.
Ms. Elaina Wood addressed the Board, stating that she was before them as part of a group from
Monticello High School and noting that their group is advocating for full support of the parallel roads as
recommended. Ms. Natalie Noble said her group believes this has been the most promising outcome for
Charlottesville local traffic and through mobility, and believes that the plan is the most productive and
practical one. Mr. Will Rieley addressed the Board, thanking Mr. Shucet and panel members for teaching
them about the bypass and the alternatives.
Mr. Bill Love addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Jack Jouett District and
supports most of the elements in the package, but feels that it’s incumbent upon the Board to look
carefully at any of the proposed changes which have the potential to cause major disruptions, adding that
the Rio and Hydraulic exchanges have that potential. Mr. Love said he agreed with Mr. Boyd’s comment
earlier that there were no current studies on these projects and, before the interchange proceeds, he feels
there should be a thorough review and environmental impact statement, and any related studies
necessary to show the economic and traffic impact on local businesses and residents during construction
and afterwards. He stated that they should note the issues related to the current construction at Route
250 and McIntire, and he would take Mr. Shucet’s recommendations with a grain of salt – as most projects
tend to run over in time and cost.
Mr. Jack Stanford of the Jack Jouett District addressed the Board, stating that he is President of
Faulconer Construction Company and has been involved for over 35 years with nearly every project on the
Route 29 corridor and understands its needs. Mr. Stanford commended Mr. Shucet and the panel for their
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
work, and said the proposed projects have been well vetted for a number of years – and he believes the
project at the Rio Road intersection will actually have a calming effect. He urged the Board to proceed
with the package in its entirety, adding that access management and transportation mobility is “a working
system,” not a lone highway – and it would be a shame to squander $200 million in badly needed
infrastructure money.
Mr. Kirk Bowers addressed the Board, stating that his is from the Rivanna District and is the
Conservation and Transportation Chair of the Piedmont Chapter of the Sierra Club. Mr. Bowers said the
work of the panel was excellent and, as a professional engineer, he believes the plan will work. He
encouraged continued exploration of the Hydraulic Road intersection adding that the improvements at Rio
Road alone will save 2.5 minutes of travel time up and down Route 29 – so adding another grade-
separated interchange at Hydraulic would save a total of five minutes. Mr. Bowers said it helps through
traffic and gets rid of local traffic, which needs to be addressed first since it comprises 85% of the volume
and, if they don’t relieve local traffic, they won’t relieve through traffic either. He also thanked the Board
for its vote in February, taking the initiative and for doing an excellent job.
Mr. Daniel Keenan addressed the Board and stated that he supports the proposed plan. Mr.
Keenan said the presentation had a statement regarding “the importance of effective communication with
the public,” and said that The Daily Progress articles on this topic were full of misstatements and false
statements and missing facts. He stated that he would like to see something done so that, throughout the
remaining part of the process, accurate statements are made, and the ideal would be to have a second
alternative daily newspaper.
Mr. Greg Cichy addressed the Board, stating that he represents Rio Hill Shopping Center, over 40
businesses small and large at Woodbrook, and stating that they support the doables but have some
concerns about the expressway option. He said the most important part of the plan to them is access to
the center, which is part of an investment on behalf of a state pension fund – and the center cannot
maintain its viability without access going in a northbound direction. Mr. Cichy said he wants to make sure
they’re included in the process going forward, adding that a lot of the property tenants were not aware of
this so they must be included going forward. He stated that the County does a great job of notifying Rio
Hill when there is a specific issue, but they were not notified about this meeting.
Mr. Sheffield asked Mr. Cichy to stay around during the break so he could get his contact
information.
Ms. Rebecca Harrison addressed the Board, stating that she is part owner of a small outparcel
retail center at the intersection of Route 29 and Rio Road – the Rio Road Shops – which houses the
Vitamin Shoppe, a Sprint store, Mattress Discounters, Sports Clips and Gym Jaunts. She stated that they
are concerned about the plan to add an expressway to Route 29 and change grade levels at Rio Road.
She said the project seems to be moving too fast with not enough time taken to study the short and long-
range impacts on retailers along those corridors, and determine whether this hybrid model will actually
work. Ms. Harrison said the plan only eliminates three stoplights, but the cost is tremendous. She stated
that they are concerned that retailers select locations based on traffic counts, access and visibility, and
this proposal would surely affect access to many businesses, and how traffic counts would be impacted is
yet to be determined. Ms. Harrison said the construction process alone would hurt retail sales and
potentially put some of them out of business. She stated that this will ultimately decrease revenues for the
County in terms of lower real estate and business license taxes, and less accessible traffic equals lower
retailer sales, forcing commercial property owners to lower rents and possibly even lose tenants – which
causes devaluation of the commercial real estate, and ultimately affects the tax assessment and the tax
revenues generated by the property. Ms. Harrison said the businesses at her center would like to
encourage the Board to slow down, study the recommendation, and take into account the overall impact to
businesses and citizens affected – not just the impacts on the transportation plan – and allow the citizens
of the County ample time to express their concerns.
Mr. Rod Gentry addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Rivanna District but is
before it as a member of the business community. He said the bank where he works owns one corner of
the Rio intersection. He said they support the doables of the project, but are vehemently against the
grade-separated interchange at Rio. Mr. Gentry said the Route 29 corridor in the County is responsible for
approximately 45% of the tax revenue that comes into the County, and this is a significant gamble – one
that he would be fearful of for the business community. He stated that what happened at McIntire has
caused the businesses there to suffer significantly, and he encouraged Board members to talk to those
business owners about the impact that project has had on their business. Mr. Gentry said what might
happen on Route 29 North is a huge gamble, and that’s not just fear-mongering – it’s fact.
Ms. Martha Wilhelm addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of the Jack Jouett District
and encouraged them to pass a resolution supporting the final recommendations of the Route 29 advisory
panel as presented. She said these recommendation would fund many items already included in the six-
year improvement plan and reflects much of what’s already in the Places 29 Master Plan, which has been
studied and supported by the community for a long time, and is the most efficient and productive way to
move forward in alleviating congestion on Route 29. Ms. Wilhelm said it seems intuitively obvious that
building parallel roads to take traffic off of Route 29, and improving intersections which are now
bottlenecks will do a great deal to help move traffic more smoothly along the corridor. She stated that the
concerns of the business community need to be kept in mind as they move forward, and the negative
impacts of construction should be mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Ms. Wilhelm said, in the end,
all members of the community – including businesses, local drivers, and those passing through the area –
will benefit from the improved access to and through the area. She stated that delaying the improvements
will only mean that congestion will get worse, and the problems dealing with required construction will only
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
increase – and the funds now available for addressing this problem will potentially be funneled elsewhere.
Ms. Wilhelm encouraged the Board to do what they can to move the recommendations of the 29 advisory
panel along as quickly as possible, and a resolution in favor of the recommendations would let the CTB
know that the community is behind these improvements.
Mr. George Larie addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Jack Jouett District and
has been involved with traffic issues on Route 29 beginning with CAT’s 2015 long-range transportation
plan, and currently as a member of the Places 29 Advisory Council. Mr. Larie stated that he fully and
highly supports the recommendations made by Mr. Shucet’s committee, and urged the Board to promptly
implement them. He said he’s been at this a long time and is getting old, and he wants to get something
done.
Mr. John Cruickshank addressed the Board, stating that he is a Charlottesville resident and is
speaking as a representative of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club – which has about 1,100 members
in Central Virginia. He thanked the Board for giving the public an opportunity to learn more about the new
plan, and to provide input on it. Mr. Cruickshank said the Sierra Club supports the recommendations of
the advisory panel on Route 29, as described by Mr. Shucet, and has long believed that Virginia spends
too much of its transportation funds on new highway construction and too little on improving efficiency and
safety of existing infrastructure, and providing people with more alternatives to automobiles. He said
many components of this common sense plan, as described, originated in the community through Places
29 meetings, and they are reasonable and effective solutions for relieving traffic congestion on Route 29.
Mr. Cruickshank said the Sierra Club would also like to see expanded bus service in the corridor, as well
as bike lanes, sidewalks and all of the proposed road improvements. He stated that they should be
concerned about the impact on businesses in the corridor, so steps should be taken to protect them. He
added that it’s their hope that the Board will give unanimous support to the recommendations.
Mr. Paul Grady addressed the Board, stating that he lives near Crozet and has been opposed to
the Best Buy ramp/Hydraulic interchange for almost 15 years because he doesn’t feel it is the best
solution to the problem. He said he has offered instead the concept of a four-lane elevated throughway
directly above Hydraulic Road that also uses parking lots and undeveloped land and affects no existing
businesses. Mr. Grady said if the MPO would model the idea and do a cost-benefit analysis, it would be
obvious that it saves the businesses along the two-block section of Emmet Street from certain economic
demise, eliminates the need for an ugly 50-foot sound wall, does not require the reconstruction of the
Barracks Road interchange, eliminates the traffic light at Hydraulic and 250, and costs less than the
current plan. Mr. Grady said, if the Board allows the Rio Road interchange to be built as currently
designed, it will squander the median of Route 29, which provides a 20-mile long straight right of way for a
light rail system in the future. He stated that, over the 30 years he has been following local transportation
planning, he has heard many people talking about a future light rail system, and for them to toss that
option callously aside would be an affront to everyone in the community and future generations. Mr.
Grady also said he understands business concerns about the impact of the Rio Road interchange, but
Albemarle Square is almost half empty and, after Northside moves, it will be more than half empty. He
suggested that a large building be constructed to house all of the businesses around the Rio Road
interchange, and that the building include two floors and underground parking, surface parking, and a floor
or two of offices perhaps mixed use with affordable housing. Mr. Grady said, most of all, it’s important to
save the median.
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that they
urge the Board to endorse the package. Mr. Werner said he came to work with PEC in 1999 and, since
then, the issue of Route 29 North and getting it to function has dominated his work. He stated that, in
1999, the PEC opposed the Western Bypass and did so because previously approved solutions had been
hijacked and the bypass had been inserted in its place. Mr. Werner said he was involved in the TJPDC
studies which developed local solutions for the corridor, including the 29/H250 study and the framework
for Places 29. He said both plans involved traffic modeling, land use planning cost estimates, public input,
and input from VDOT – and both recommended grade separated interchanges at Rio Road and the
Hydraulic Road intersections with Route 29. Mr. Werner said, for decades, the MPO has included the Rio
Road interchange in its long-range plan. He stated that he was involved with the County’s review of
Places 29 and its adoption in 2011 and, for the past three years, he has been fighting for solutions – but
never alone, as the PEC has been joined by CATCO, the Sierra Club, SLEC, the League of Women
Voters, ASAP and others. Mr. Werner said, most importantly, the support has come from many hundreds
of local residents who have remained strongly committed to seeing real and effective solutions on Route
29. He stated that the community is here once again at this meeting to urge the Board to make Route 29
work for this community, not to bypass it. Mr. Werner said it would be extremely gratifying for him to
return to – and not pull out of thin air as some have claimed - a series of real solutions for Route 29.
Note: The Board recessed their meeting at 8:04 p.m., and returned at 8:23 p.m.
Mr. John Pfaltz addressed the Board, stating that he is a Charlottesville resident and a member of
the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC). He said the panel is proposing $200 million but
aren’t getting anything for it – adding that the bypass would have provided all of the things which Mr.
Shucet said would happen with this package. Mr. Pfaltz said he voted for everything in this package as a
CTAC member, and it’s in the constrained long-range transportation plan. He stated that there are a lot of
good things here, but this plan will not solve all the problems. Mr. Pfaltz said his request was that VDOT
not sell the properties reserved for the bypass, because the community will need a parallel road of some
kind – with an overpass into the University. He emphasized that it’s the most important property that
VDOT has, and they need to keep it.
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Mike Farabaugh of the Jack Jouett District addressed the Board, stating that he and his wife
own properties in the Rivanna District, the Jack Jouett District and the City of Charlottesville and he
strongly supports Mr. Shucet’s proposal. He noted that VDOT does not have all of the right of ways along
the former bypass alignment and those properties are worthless. He thanked the Board for allowing the
public to speak.
Ms. Karen Weiner addressed the Board, stating that she is the mall manager for Fashion Square
Mall, which is a 600,000 square foot regional shopping center southeast of the intersection of Route 29
and Rio Road. Ms. Weiner said, for 34 years, the mall has served the community on many levels – both
economically and socially – with the shops providing employment for thousands of citizens and
contributing to the success of hundreds of ancillary local businesses. She stated that they commend
officials for seeking the best transportation solutions for the growing community, but many questions have
yet to be addressed, specifically regarding the proposed US 29 and Rio Road interchange. Ms. Weiner
said she would mention a few: how will operations of the four shopping centers and businesses located
immediately near the US 29 and Rio Road intersection be impacted by the elimination of traffic signals at
primary entrances on US 29, and visibility obstructions created by lower express lanes; what study has
been conducted on the economic impact on businesses in the construction area, as well as the economic
ripple effect throughout the community; how will Rio Road – specifically the eastbound traffic – handle the
additional vehicular traffic volume created by the elimination of traffic signals on 29 both north and south of
Rio, plus eliminating the southbound left turn access points into the entrances of Fashion Square and
Albemarle Square. Ms. Weiner said, while the mall supports efforts to improve traffic flow and safety on
Route 29, it should be planned in a thoughtful manner and should engage engineers and other
professionals to conduct studies, and approve study money before spending construction money.
Mr. Mark Wood addressed the Board, stating that he lives and works in the Rio District and, while
he supports some of the proposed 29 solutions, he does have a problem with the Rio/29 interchange. He
said it has become a “not in my front yard” issue for him, as his family owns and operates the Storage
Solutions Center just north of the interchange, and they will lose the light they share with the Goodwill
store, explaining that their customers going north will have to go to the Woodbrook traffic light and make a
u-turn to come in, and they will be reduced to a right turn in, right turn out situation. Mr. Wood stated that
he has serious concerns about how they will survive during the construction phase and, while he agrees
with many of the elements in the plan, he does not support the Rio/29 interchange.
Mr. Matt Tait addressed the Board, stating that he lives in Roanoke but is a district manager for
Kroger Company in this area. Mr. Tait said he attended the University of Virginia a number of years ago
and it is a privilege to be part of the community again. He stated that they do support many of the
elements in the package that are doable but he has genuine concerns about the ingress which would be
affected by the Rio Hill provisions. Mr. Tait said Kroger has just committed a $6 million investment into
upgrading the Rio Hill Shopping Center and, if they had known this was on the table, it’s quite possible that
wouldn’t have taken place. He said the Hydraulic Road Kroger location could also be significantly
impacted, and this is the store’s number one or two fuel site in their division of 121 stores – usually
running about 120,000 gallons per week. He stated that Albemarle is generally a business-friendly county,
due in large part to the leadership of local officials, and the lifeblood of the local economy is mobility. Mr.
Tait said, if customers cannot easily access stores, their mobility is impacted and, in turn, the local
economy is harmed. He stated that he supports their call for action in efforts to identify workable
solutions, and encouraged the Board to consider studying the proposal before adoption and to approve
study money before construction money.
Mr. Boyd asked about the comment to not invest in the Rio Hill fuel facility, and asked him if the
company would have moved forward with expansion if this had been an approved project and they knew
there would be massive construction along the corridor. Mr. Tait said they most likely would not have
moved forward, and would have waited until construction was completed because they would anticipate a
decline during that time.
Mr. Boyd asked him if, in their company’s professional opinion, they recognize that construction
has a definite impact on business. Mr. Tait confirmed that it did.
Mr. Ben Bates addressed the Board, stating that “sell the bypass” was on the list of items to
discuss at about number nine but, to him, it seems that it would be the first priority. He said that is the
“elephant in the room ” and is mobilizing the forces of “no,” because there are people who are hoping if
they throw enough obstacles in the way, it becomes the default solution. Mr. Bates said, if they sold the
bypass as a first step, it would force people to divert their attention toward constructive measures to make
this project work and would serve the community very well. He stated that if everyone starts at the
beginning, when the project passes from one organization to the next, things should happen quickly – and
they need to act quickly in terms of disposing of the bypass right of way.
Ms. Cynthia McElroy addressed the Board, stating that she lives in the Rivanna District and is a
decades-long resident of the County, having had homes in Woodbrook, Carrsbrook, Northfields, and
Forest Lakes – and knows the Route 29 traffic situation very well. She said it’s a problem that’s been
talked about for decades, and they finally have a Board that’s willing to address it, do something about it,
and keep the citizens well-informed and involved. Ms. McElroy said it’s a major step forward for the
community, and also stated that she was pleased to hear Mr. Shucet’s very clear report and agrees with it
although she has concerns about citizens and businesses losing their jobs. She stated that it gives her
relief to know that it might take months and not years for the overpass at Rio to be built, and felt the
community should make the extra effort to support those businesses while construction was underway.
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Peter Chandler addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of Crozet and is speaking
on behalf of Chandler’s Bakery, which is located in Rio Hill Center. He said what he hasn’t heard anyone
talk about is what the improvements would do to Charlottesville and the character of Route 29, and said
that the expansion of the Rt. 29 back in the mid-90s was a “horror show,” with many businesses failing
and people suffering. Mr. Chandler said it was a mess, and now they’re going to do it again, and it seems
that some people in the state, county and locality are driven to try to do something about reducing traffic
on Route 29 – but it is not that bad. He stated that they want to turn it into a concrete highway and are
racing to change what is now a passable road into nothing but asphalt and concrete, only to get to the end
of 29 south and come to a dead stop at the 250 bypass. Mr. Chandler said they would never end up
widening that, but he agrees with the plans to extend Berkmar and Hillsdale, as they m ake sense,
however, with the Rio Road project, they are setting themselves on a course that they wouldn’t be able to
step back from, and are going to end up with a straight bypass all the way down to Rt. 250. He
emphasized that the businesses will suffer, and 48 months adds up to four years.
Mr. Mark Green addressed the Board, stating that he is a Charlottesville resident and the
manager of Rivanna Plaza, LLC, which owns a small shopping center in front of the bowling alley. He
stated that the center has seven tenants who are very concerned about local traffic and mobility, including
a childcare center where people need to get in and out every day, a donut shop, a wine shop, a nail shop
– and any steps the Board takes to reduce mobility and turning movements on Route 29 would hurt these
businesses. Mr. Green said they are in favor of nine of the recommendations in the package, but can’t
support the Rio interchange, and he in no way believes that they could complete the digging of a trench
down the middle of Route 29 in a matter of months to make this happen. He stated that the Rio
interchange in itself is not a solution, but many of the other projects are and, if they don’t get the Hydraulic
interchange or remove some of the traffic interchange, then the Rio interchange would just move the
bottleneck down the road. Mr. Green said they were hoping to see a larger study that would have some
metrics regarding improved mobility and improved movement on Route 29. He stated that Mr. Shucet’s
presentation was long on opinions and short on facts, there were no schedules, detailed cost plans,
construction phasing plans to minimize disruption to businesses – and his contention that this is an “all or
nothing” proposition that would mean cutting off funding for the rest of the recommendations without
approval of the Rio interchange is not believable.
Mr. Phil Jaderborg addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of Barboursville and grew up
in Orange, but has a business off of Rio and 29 called “PJ Networks Computer Services,” which is a local
walk-in computer repair shop. He said one of his biggest concerns was the impact of construction at the
Rio interchange, particularly on small businesses such as his which has 10 employees. Mr. Jaderborg
stated that the only way his company is more than break-even is the fact that 85% of their revenue comes
from going onsite to clients’ locations in and around town, and he feels badly for businesses that rely
solely on walk-in customers. He said he would like everyone to think carefully about the impacts of the
construction, and said that he noticed several times the comment about delivering Rio “flawlessly” prior to
moving forward with anything else, and he would hate to see that be the guinea pig as to whether they
want to work on intersections like Hydraulic.
Mr. Leigh Hughes addressed the Board, stating that he lives in Charlottesville and works in
commercial real estate. Mr. Hughes said he drives the corridor multiple times every day, and put Mr.
Jaderborg in the building he is currently in – and both large and small tenants are concerned. He stated
that they haven’t talked enough about the economic impact the construction will have, adding that 45% of
the County’s tax base is a lot to gamble with. Mr. Hughes said this would trickle down to sales, residential
and commercial taxes, and the County would receive appeals that ask them to reduce their values due to
lower rents and higher vacancy rates. He stated that they don’t have a place to replace these retail
tenants, or another corridor because there is a restrictive “no growth zone” and, if they kill Route 29, they
kill the community. Mr. Hughes stated that the Rio/29 interchange is not the problem, and they should
focus on the doables. He said, if they look at the documents from Smart Albemarle and Real Solutions
Now, they all agree on the doables, and the reason they’re debating this is because of the intersection at
Rio/29. Mr. Hughes emphasized that what they propose to do there has no economic impact studies,
traffic impact studies, or geological impact studies which relate to the current situation – and to do these
projects in months is simply not feasible. He stated that the McIntire Road construction has been going on
for two years now; the people who used to patronize C’Ville Coffee have likely found another coffee shop –
and they’re probably not coming back, and neither are the tax dollars.
Ms. Betty Sevachko addressed the Board, stating that she is a 28-year resident of the County and
a senior citizen living on a fixed income, and was before the Board to talk about the businesses. She
stated that the County had an increase in revenue because of the retail businesses, and she was excited
about that growth and the new businesses coming like Costco. Ms. Sevachko said she lived here in the
1990s when the Route 29 expansion occurred, and the businesses along that corridor are surviving on a
razor thin margin that cannot withstand long-term losses. She stated that, when those businesses go
under, it is the County taxpayers who end up footing the bill. Ms. Sevachko urged the Board not to sell the
bypass land yet, as they need to be very methodical and leave all of its options open.
Mr. Robert Humphris of the Jack Jouett District addressed the Board, stating that he strongly
endorses the advisory panel’s recommendations on solutions for Route 29, adding that grade-separated
interchanges have always been a major complement of any improvements to traffic congestion. He stated
that the $3 million study done in 1987 identified local traffic as an overwhelming contributor to the
congestion problem, and indicated that grade-separated interchanges were essential – stating that,
without the interchanges, the level of service remained “F,” with or without the now extinct Western
Bypass. Mr. Humphris said, in their 1991 comments on the draft environmental impact statement, the
Federal Highway Administration stated that “none of the alternatives seem to meet the stated purpose and
need without the grade separation of the intersections.” He said that the EPA stated “since the proposed
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
built alternatives would not improve the level of service on Route 29, we question the need for a highway
on a new alignment.” Mr. Humphris said the CTB 1990 resolution also included grade-separated
interchanges to be built before the Western Bypass, as did the 1992 three-party agreement between the
County, City and University. He stated that in 1995, the CTB – led by two local representatives – moved to
immediately terminate these interchanges, which was done without public hearing, VDOT
recommendation, or coordination with the MPO or any County officials. Mr. Humphris said, according to
the May 1995 minutes, several Supervisors reported that they had been coerced by two CTB members,
and one indicated that he was told “in no uncertain terms that if the Board did not back off from the grade-
separated interchanges, then it could forget about trying to get any money for the Meadowcreek Parkway.”
He added that this is a fantastic opportunity to finally get these projects done, and encouraged the Board
to endorse the recommendations.
Mr. Scott VandePol of the Jack Jouett District addressed the Board, stating that he supports
everything Mr. Humphris said and completely endorses the 29 advisory panel solutions. Mr. VandePol
said long-term improved Route 29 traffic flow would improve business and property values along that
route, and credit for where they are today is due to an active and informed citizenry, engaged civic
organizations, and a democratic process – which has saved them from a wasteful and stupid bypass. He
stated that Virginia law has a 20-year sell-back policy on properties which have not been utilized for
construction, and the contract in 2011 was let in part to prevent that clock from moving past and, in no way
was VDOT or the state ready to build this road. Mr. VandePol said three properties have passed the
sellback date and, within the next year, another two properties would also pass that date. He stated that
the current situation is a “fraud” upon the intent of the law, and all of those easements should be sold back
now
Mr. Michael DeGidio addressed the Board, stating that he represents Barracks Road Shopping
Center and 29th Place, and thanked the Board for letting them make 29th Place a better experience for the
community. Mr. DeGidio said his group is in complete support of the six doables in the package, and
emphasized that no successful project is seen to fruition without due diligence. He stated that Mr.
Shucet’s presentation was helpful, but created a lot of questions, and the Board does need to do its due
diligence before proceeding. He said the rest of the picture is the economic impact – not just the tax base,
but the fact that, during construction, there will be a choke-off to a lot of businesses down the line, all of
which will stifle the tax base and eliminate jobs down the road. Mr. DeGidio said his two centers house
120 merchants, representing thousands of jobs and many businesses up and down the highway which
also need to be considered. He stated that he would like to see a plan as to how they will mitigate that
problem.
Mr. David Mitchell, a resident of the Jack Jouett District, addressed the Board stating that he
moved to the area eight years ago and feels that the reason things are where they are now is because of
a lack of trust. Mr. Mitchell said a lot of groups that were against the bypass felt it was a de-facto growth
ring, and the business community doesn’t trust that this will just be one intersection – and instead, it’s the
beginning of what will march up and down Route 29, which is a freeway and death to businesses. He
stated that things will change if businesses are blocked off and, in order to mitigate that, they need to do
the doables – with a parallel road system in place to somehow help those businesses survive. Mr. Mitchell
said this is an opportunity to show some trust to the other side, make it possible for these businesses to
survive through the construction process, and not have the freeway system continue north and south up
Route 29. He stated that it’s a bad idea and not conducive to Places 29 or the County’s Comp Plan.
Mr. Bill Jones addressed the Board, stating that he lives in the Samuel Miller District and also
owns property in the Whitehall District. Mr. Jones said he and his wife have been taxpayers and residents
of the area for almost 29 years and, just today, he and his wife drove from the Route 250 Bypass up to
Proffit Road, and they counted 24 traffic lights going north and 23 going south. He stated that they had to
stop at over 50% of the traffic lights, and the same was true coming back, so he was pleased to hear
about the adaptive signal program and wasn’t sure why it wasn’t implemented long ago. Mr. Jones
referenced a report from a professional engineer in Texas, who noted that this kind of system was used in
Maryland, leaving D.C., as well as in Lexington, Kentucky, California, Texas, and Jacksonville, Florida. He
said, using a system like this on a 25-light roadway, it reduced delays by 35%, with stops reduced by 39%
and actual travel time reduced by 7%. Mr. Jones said he would ask that to be a top priority to immediately
improve the traffic flow. He mentioned the lack of a traffic light at the post office, and the need to make a
u-turn to get back on 29 South – and asked for that situation to be considered in the plans.
Mr. Carter Myers addressed the Board, stating that he is a County resident and a business person
and encouraged Supervisors to be very careful before voting to authorize construction of the interchange
at Rio Road without a complete impact study, an engineered set of plans, review of the construction
process, the easements, timetables and any required right of way. He emphasized that the Board has no
hard data to make the vote at this point. Mr. Myers said they spent considerable time on the CTB in 1994
with engineers and engineering consulting firms, looking at the interchanges, and designed interchanges
for Hydraulic, Rio and Greenbrier – and what people saw, they didn’t like. He stated that, maybe this time,
it would be different, but there’s no way to know that until they get hard data. He said he hoped they would
move forward with the proposed package, but with the stipulation that the construction of the Rio
interchange be contingent on the completion of a thorough impact study and an engineered set of highway
plans. Mr. Myers said the Board can vote this in and put it in the plan, but hold off on the final construction
until hard data is brought back for further review.
Mr. Frank Birckhead addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Samuel Miller
District and has lived in the County his entire life. Mr. Birckhead said the project is insufficient without
fore-thought and study, and urged the Board not to approve the project until they get the final design –
adding that, ultimately, the project would have to get ARB approval. He stated that the community has
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
spent millions on improvements to beautify the entrance corridors to the community, and asked the Board
not to let outside forces destroy their progress.
Mr. Pete Borches addressed the Board, stating that he is a member of the Places 29 Advisory
Council and a County resident. Mr. Borches said a lot has happened in the last four months, going from
the bypass to now talking about an overpass at Rio along with a contingent of other suggestions. He
stated that the Route 29 panel has made some exciting recommendations which could be of benefit to the
community for the long term, and these consensus items are global, however, when it comes to the Rio
Road interchange, they might be moving a bit too quickly. Mr. Borches said they’ve talked about it over
the years but it hasn’t been a reality for more than four months, and he encouraged the Board and the
community to step back from this commitment and perform a full impact study of what it means to put this
in place. He stated that it may be the right decision, but they don’t know that for certain, and he is
suggesting keeping it in the plan for further study. Mr. Borches said, if the project is warranted, it will be
supported more broadly, and he looked forward to working with the Board in the future.
Mr. Mike Basile addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of Ivy and works at a business
located off of Airport Road. Mr. Basile said it took him a total of 12 minutes to get from 250 to his office,
and, while there are a lot of cars on Route 29, it moves fairly quickly unless there is an accident in the two-
lane sections which need to be widened. He stated that this doesn’t involve Rio and Route 29, and the
businesses have spoken loud and clear when saying this proposal would impact the businesses as well as
the tax base in the County for several years to come. Mr. Basile said he doesn’t think a lot of people know
about this project, as they were just talking about a bypass a few months ago. He stated that he didn’t
understand the hurried mentality, and suggested the Board take time to build community buy-in and
involvement in the process.
Ms. Sue Albrecht addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of the Jack Jouett District
and fully endorses the plan. She stated that she owns several commercial properties just west of Route
29 and on Berkmar Drive, and has 14 total tenants. Ms. Albrecht said she would like to see as much
effort as possible put into making sure traffic can flow during the improvements so that the businesses
along the route can sustain their vitality and, given the amount of space available along 29, they should be
able to do that with the right expertise and vision. She stated that she would like to see the rights of way
sold back, noting that she has property which was purchased by VDOT and would like to have it back and
restore its value.
Mr. Max Evans addressed the Board, stating that he has lived in the same house for 45 years and
is beginning to feel like a native of the community. Mr. Evans said he appreciates all the work that Mr.
Shucet and the panel have done, as it is good area planning which involves several parts to the solution
and not a single silver bullet like the bypass was. He stated that this isn’t an interchange at Rio Road, it’s
a grade-elevation separation for several lanes of through traffic. Mr. Evans encouraged the Board to
incorporate lots of landscape with the work to be done there, noting that Route 29 could benefit from a lot
more planting. Mr. Evans said there would be plenty of room to work within the median in order to do this
work, so businesses wouldn’t be interrupted, and stated that the parallel roads need to be addressed
immediately as they would provide alternate access to the businesses for the back portion of the sites.
Mr. Bob Brust addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Jack Jouett District and
thanked them for allowing input. Mr. Brust said he sees three pieces which need to be accomplished: sell
back the land from the Western Bypass debacle, which would allow the community to heal; vote for
approval of the Route 29 corridor plan; and involve businesses in the area in the planning before and
during construction. He encouraged the affected businesses to think about how much better their
business would be when people can get there because, in looking at access to the businesses at the Rio
Road/29 interchange today, it’s pretty poor. Mr. Brust said the flow after the interchange is complete
would allow better access to those businesses.
Ms. Sally Thomas addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of the Samuel Miller District
and has been involved in this issue for a very long time. Ms. Thomas said they’ve always known that the
interchanges were the only thing that were going to work, and that’s always been true. She stated that the
Board’s job is to set priorities, and the Rio Road interchange is the keystone as it holds the parallel roads
and makes them usable. Ms. Thomas stated that, while they won’t be running the program, they will be
able to tell VDOT what its priorities are. She said the Board also has the right to make businesses a
priority, and encouraged them to learn from what’s just happened at McIntire in ensuring that local
businesses are advertised and that alternative routes are provided, with VDOT giving them priority in their
planning and engineering. Ms. Thomas said no one has spoken yet for commuters, and VDOT is able to
give real time information as projects proceed – so the Board can require that. She stated that she
appreciated that, when Mr. Shucet made his presentation to the panel, he made the point that the
attractiveness of the entrance into the community depends on what this looks like – so he set aside money
in his rough draft for landscaping, and the Board can demand that it be a small but critical part of the
project.
Mr. Dennis Rooker addressed the Board, stating that he is a longtime resident of the Jack Jouett
District and previously served on the Board. He stated that it’s not an accident that there are a huge
number of businesses along Route 29, and businesses have located there because of the traffic. Mr.
Rooker said traffic is the lifeblood of their success, and they would not benefit from directing that traffic
elsewhere – but what they do benefit from is a lot of traffic which moves well in the corridor and around
their businesses. He stated that, if the area becomes regularly congested, customers will go elsewhere
over the long term to avoid that congestion. Mr. Rooker said the original widening of Route 29 was
opposed by businesses in the Route 29 corridor, and an article dated October 31, 1986 entitled “Hundreds
Protest U.S. 29 Plan” begins with “Boos and cheers by 500 Charlottesville area residents Thursday night
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
told the state highway department they don’t care for a plan to widen U.S. 29 from four lanes to eight
lanes. Speakers said it was too ambitious, and would not help traffic move on the congested highway.”
Mr. Rooker asked where they would be today if they had two lanes of Route 29 on each side through that
area and said, although the Board of Supervisors at that time knew there would be some inconvenience to
businesses while the multi-phased project moved forward, they also understood it was needed – and
would be in the long-term best interest of the community as a whole, including existing and future
businesses. He said, since the completion of the widening, there has been a huge amount of new
business investment in the corridor – hundreds of millions of dollars that most likely would not have
occurred had the widening not gone forward. Mr. Rooker stated that this Board is at a similar crossroads
today, and the community has a once in a lifetime opportunity to receive $233 million of transportation
funding to do the most important projects in the Route 29 corridor. He urged them to seize this
opportunity and send a message to Richmond that this community supports improving vehicle, pedestrian,
bicycle and train transport in the Route 29 corridor.
Ms. Simona Halloway-Warren addressed the Board, stating that she is an employee and resident
of the area for over 50 years, working in the Rt. 29 corridor for 28 years of that time. Ms. Warren said she
has gathered lots of customers who come see her, and she hates to inconvenience them as well as the
other businesses. She stated that Charlottesville is a destination, not a throughway, and people are
coming to the nice little areas throughout the community, with larger businesses mixing in with smaller
mom and pop businesses. Ms. Warren said that is what makes this area unique, and they don’t want to
lose the beauty of the community – which was recently rated second behind Santa Barbara, California, in
the entire United States. She added that she doesn’t want to lose the customer base she’s built up over
the last 28 years, and asked the Board to think about the changes which are being considered.
Mr. Lloyd Luck addressed the Board, stating that his family owns and operates Jefferson Coin and
recently purchased the former Pizza Hut building on Route 29 to remodel it to use as their store. Mr. Luck
said he’s heard the statistic of 30% reduced business during construction of the Rio Road interchange
and, if that’s accurate, it would cost the County millions in tax dollars. He stated that the timeframe noted
of a few months was just for the grade separation, and the actual construction of the interchange would
take two years. Mr. Luck said they do oppose the Rio Road interchange, but believes that the other parts
of the plan sound fantastic.
Mr. James Plotkin addressed the Board, stating that he represents Albemarle Square Shopping
Center and has been involved with the property for nearly 40 years. Mr. Plotkin said he supports the six
doables that are part of the package plan, but urged the Board to table the plans for Rio and the other
grade separations until engineering and economic impact studies have been performed and presented to
affected citizens and businesses for proper study and input. He stated that construction process and
irreversible grade-separated interchanges, particularly the Rio Road interchange, will cause irreversible
collateral damage to the individual businesses in the shopping center and to the shopping center itself as
well as to other properties and businesses at the intersection. Mr. Plotkin said there are no funds
allocated for compensation for lost businesses and jobs, and small businesses will be hit the hardest. He
asked why the County would “dash the hopes and dreams of so many businesses” so that people passing
through can save two to three minutes, and why spend $81 million to do so. Mr. Plotkin said the Hydraulic
intersection is worse than Rio, according to information presented earlier and, if that is true, why is that
grade separation being put on hold now. He asked if the $81 million reflected loss in tax revenue, jobs
and retail tax sales, and asked if that cost would be artificially low. Mr. Plotkin asked if those who would
be impacted at the Rio Road intersection have the same rights as those impacted by the Hydraulic Road
intersection. He asked the Board to stop and think long and hard about supporting the grade separation.
He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak and for considering the points in his earlier emails.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Plotkin if Albemarle Square would consider investing in redevelopment of that
shopping center, and if this construction were on the forefront. Mr. Plotkin responded that he would be
happy to have a private conversation with him about ongoing plans, noting that shopping centers endure
many ups and downs with economic cycles. He commented that they once housed Best Products,
Safeway and Drugfair, and they have all been replaced – yet ACAC actually attracts more people than
Best Products, which was “a wild success.” Mr. Plotkin said they are currently in an upswing.
Mr. Paul Wright of the City of Charlottesville addressed the Board, stating that the Federal
Highway Administration used the phrase “purpose and need” in their artfully timed letter to kill the bypass
– but it’s a phrase that Mr. Shucet never mentioned, and only one person at this hearing mentioned in
passing. He said he didn’t understand that the elimination of three traffic lights equals the elimination of
13 traffic lights, which wasn’t deemed “purpose and need.” Mr. Wright said this is perhaps something the
FHWA would deal with, because he didn’t understand how this project deals with purpose and need. He
stated that he would like to support the Rio interchange, but doesn’t have enough information to do so. Mr.
Wright said he has attended all of these meetings and listened to all four of the task force meetings, even
once while on vacation in London, and he doesn’t know how the Board can vote on the Rio project without
further study. He stated that no major business with property on 29 has spoken in favor of the Rio
interchange, but to vote on this, they need to believe in the “flawless execution of VDOT.” Mr. Wright said
what he observed tonight was a “love fest” between anti-bypass forces and VDOT – which, just a few
months ago, would have been unthinkable – but that would need to continue through construction and
completion, or Albemarle citizens would be happy to judge the quick decision tonight in the fall of 2015.
Mr. L.F. Wood addressed the Board, stating that he is representing the North Charlottesville
Business Council and also serves on the Places 29 Advisory Board. Mr. Wood said most all of the
businesses they’ve heard from are near the proposed grade-separated interchange location, which would
affect them drastically, and not a single business person has spoken in favor of the interchange at Rio.
He said it’s been stated several times that the grade-separated interchange is not a solution, and going
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
through that little passage runs you into the real problem going south on Rt. 29, which is Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Wood suggested using the $10 million in the plan to first address that problem, and then study the Rio
grade-separated interchange before moving forward.
An unidentified speaker from the audience asked if the Board had any figures on the number of
crashes at the Rio Road interchange, because that’s where she sees the most aggressive driving.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there was sufficient crash data available for the Rio and Hydraulic
intersections. Mr. Lynch responded that they had that data available and could provide it fairly easily.
Mr. Boyd said what he understands them to be saying is that not knowing the exact numbers, the
safety issues are much greater – or at least greater – at Hydraulic than at Rio. Mr. Shucet said they are
greater, but not much greater. He stated that Hydraulic is in the center of having the most crashes, with
Rio being still in the zone but not in the center.
Mr. Boyd said Hydraulic is also the most congested area, according to data for the 29 corridor.
Mr. Shucet confirmed that it was the most congested area along the 29 corridor.
Ms. Palmer asked Mr. Shucet to comment on some of the concerns raised at the meeting,
specifically the expressway concerns, and how the interconnection of roads can help solve some of the
traffic issues.
Mr. Shucet said he has not recommended an expressway or throughway at all, and he is not
recommending this package as the first phase of anything else – he is recommending this package, and
not anything that’s not part of it. He stated that he would agree with people who said they don’t want to
see an expressway, and he is not advocating for that. Mr. Shucet said he mentioned this as “a start,” and
what Carter Myers said to them is precisely what would happen. He explained that, by approving this total
$233 million package and getting it as part of the constrained long-range plan and in the six-year
improvement program, the studies required for each of the projects – Hillsdale, Berkmar, etc. – can be
done. He said the appropriate environmental review would have to be performed and approved, and
preliminary engineering activities would be undertaken, with public hearings held and designs produced –
all of which would take place before there was any construction. Mr. Shucet stated that, by getting all of
the funds in the six-year improvement program, they get the projects in ahead of the statewide project
prioritization with House Bill 2, but still go through these very important study processes. He added that, at
each phase of these studies from the beginning and throughout the entire process, the business
community should be involved. He said there is a lot of legitimate concern about what happens during
construction, but the construction eventually ends – and if they look at Route 1 through Woodbridge, they
might get an example of a corridor they don’t want Route 29 to become. Mr. Shucet said, in looking at
Route 28 in Northern Virginia, the businesses got together and helped fund a series of 10 interchanges –
but those are much larger projects with a lot more traffic, and not what’s being recommended locally. He
stated that, if they consider any negative impacts and say that should be part of the cost scenario, then the
positive impacts that accrue when access improves should also be counted. Mr. Shucet said, in his
experience, access and mobility are at the top of the list along with available workforce. He stated that,
even though Hydraulic is in the center of the congestion, it doesn’t connect Hillsdale, Rio and Berkmar –
and, when capacity is added to a corridor, it doesn’t always have to be added on the port to be effective.
Mr. Shucet said this system of parallel roads with an efficient and effective connection will help the entire
corridor perform better. He emphasized that the issue with Rio exists now, and the recommendation in his
package for Rio isn’t to favor through traffic, it’s because that intersection is going to begin breaking down
and failing. Mr. Shucet said they have an opportunity to study it and to fix it and to connect the parallel
roadway network by Rio, and thus make the entire corridor work much more effectively and efficiently.
Ms. Palmer asked if the system of parallel roads was a solution in itself over a period of time.
Mr. Shucet said he believed it would be a solution, and it is the first step in the project
development process – not to do more projects. He stated that, if they deliver this package of solutions, it
would be a long time before another round of improvements came online. Mr. Shucet said this has been a
long time in the making, and they can watch how it works and grows over time but, in his judgment, it is a
solution, not part one of a solution. He stated that what he has put forth is the first step in doing that
package as part of the County’s six-year improvements.
Mr. Boyd said he finds it interesting that they keep calling this a package which needs to be done
altogether, and the previous Board and administration had a package that they put together also – which
included the bypass, Berkmar Drive, widening Route 29 north of the bridge, the Best Buy ramp, and
extension of Hillsdale Drive. Mr. Boyd said, when they expressed concern about losing the rest of the
projects if they gave up the bypass, then suddenly it wasn’t a package anymore. He stated that the real
issue with the plan is Rio Road, and he would rather see more analytical data and study of the physical
and traffic impacts, utilities, borings, etc. – with the same level of scrutiny that he would have experienced
when he worked for large companies during a mergers and acquisitions process. He stated that the
proper approach would be for them to study the interchange at Rio Road and buy themselves some time
while they work on parallel roads and the widening of Route 29. Mr. Boyd said he certainly wouldn’t want
to start construction on Route 29 until they get the parallel road system in place, adding that he pitied the
people on Georgetown Road and the businesses if they did that. He added that he’s never seen a traffic
study on this package and, if VDOT has one, he doesn’t know where it is, despite trying to find one.
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Dittmar stated that they are at a conceptual stage of looking at a number of elements
combined together for a solution, and the reason the timing is so critical is because they haven’t had the
money to proceed with other packages in the past. She said the County had some money put into their
budget for the out years of FY18, 19 and 20 for some of the parallel roads, and this gives them the
opportunity to have funds before they run out – going into the state’s central fund and then prioritized out
to the County for this package. She stated that she didn’t think they would see this kind of funding again
for a long time so, no matter what they do at this meeting, she would advocate that they pass on a
conceptual plan that signals to the state that they want the money and want it directed to specific projects,
including studies.
Mr. Boyd said his office is on Rio Road, just past that intersection, and he goes through it
numerous times per day – and if that is a D-level road, then where he grew up in D.C. must be a “Z,”
because he’s never had to wait more than one light cycle to get through the Rio intersection.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he also travels through the intersection frequently, and has had to wait
several light cycles to get through. He also said the community has been in a transportation funding
tailspin for 20 years, and Mr. Boyd did try to pull them out of it with the bypass, but that came to a dead
end. Mr. Sheffield said the County is now being given an opportunity to take that money and apply it to
other transportation projects, something the Board feared wouldn’t happen. He stated that he was afraid
to turn his back on it, because it would be another 10 years of being in a tailspin if they didn’t.
Ms. Palmer said it was made clear at this meeting the studies they’ve asked for are going to be
done, and this is the first step.
Mr. Shucet stated that, like Mr. Boyd, he’s also worked for large companies during mergers and
acquisitions, and you don’t do anything in the dark. Mr. Shucet said this package is their access for doing
those studies, not just for Rio but for Berkmar and for other projects that will need some of those same
studies. He stated that, by approving this as a package, they will have put their stamp on the $233 million,
and he believed that was important for them, for Charlottesville and for Route 29. Mr. Shucet said the
studies would be done, and no construction would go forward without utility studies, geotechnical review,
etc. – and the community should participate in that.
Ms. Mallek said that is very important clarifying information to know – that the bulldozers will not
show up tomorrow to start the work, and that there is time when everyone is working together to do very
detailed quadrant studies with all the landowners and business owners to make sure that engineers who
work with VDOT will understand their needs and concerns and find solutions on paper way before any
construction begins. She stated that they’ve been talking about many of these things for a long time from
a land use standpoint, and she will eagerly support the package.
Mr. Boyd asked why they would just study Hydraulic then.
Ms. Dittmar said Hydraulic is a major, complicated situation – and they needed the money now for
that study.
Ms. Mallek said the 2007 Corridor Study had a multitude of information and data, and that’s very
current information. She said the 29/H250 study addressed the interconnectivity between various projects
– Hydraulic, Rt. 250, Hillsdale extension – and what to do with Hydraulic at the east end. She said those
needed to move onto the next phase in order for them to step forward, and it would be a huge mistake to
put it off into sometime in the future, and instead start to move forward deliberately now.
Ms. Palmer and Ms. McKeel stated their agreement.
Ms. Dittmar said she was impressed at the number of business people who came out at the
meeting, which was a challenge during her nine years as president of the Chamber of Commerce, no
matter what the issue was. She stated this isn’t something that is going to be fabulous overnight, but the
fear about the plan can be eradicated in large part with the process they follow and studies they have. Ms.
Dittmar said, when they finish this and can clear all of the approval processes, everything on Route 29 will
be far more valuable. She stated that, if VDOT must do their work flawlessly, then local government
needs to step up and make sure that the design process and input are also well-executed, including
seeking input from business people, commuters from impacted neighborhoods, and residents of the
alternate roads used to avoid construction.
Ms. Palmer said she agreed, and stated that there were a number of business owners who stated
their support for the package – and she felt it was extremely important that they start working with the
business community as soon as possible. She noted that VDOT now has the capability to provide up-to-
the-minute information about construction delays and how to avoid different roads and areas.
Ms. Mallek said overhead signs like those used on I-66 alerting people well ahead of traffic issues
can be quite helpful.
Ms. McKeel asked Mr. Shucet if he had anything further to address Mr. Boyd’s concerns,
specifically how much work VDOT had done at the Rio intersection.
Mr. Shucet said the profile of the topography there couldn’t be much better, given the rise in
elevation from the roadway of 29, and that makes construction easier in terms of keeping local traffic up
and the through traffic through. He stated that VDOT already has an idea of utility locations both north
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 17)
and south of Rio, and the studies that have been mentioned are important and would be conducted and
completed as each phase moves forward. Mr. Shucet said there were several comments that “there are a
lot of things we don’t know,” but you have to get the package into the program so one can begin to answer
those questions.
Mr. Boyd asked at what point it would not be cost-justified to move forward with a project, for
example a 30% increase in cost due to geotechnical studies, utility reworking, acquisition property values,
etc. – as he would like to know what the threshold would be.
Mr. Shucet said, when he was at VDOT, if he was told that an $80 million project might cost $90
million, he would ask questions because he’d like to know why, but he’d be looking to move forward. He
stated that, if he was told that an $80 million project would cost $100 or $115 million or more, then that’s a
different discussion.
Mr. Boyd asked if that would go back to the CTB for further discussion. Mr. Shucet said, if more
funds are necessary to complete the delivery of a project, then more money would have to be allocated by
the CTB.
Mr. Boyd asked if that’s what happened with Hillsdale Drive Extended and the Best Buy ramp,
once they got into the technical review of it.
Mr. Sheffield noted that that’s what was happening with the interchanges for the bypass, with
proposed costs at one level but interchange design costs escalating.
Mr. Boyd said they didn’t get that far.
Mr. Sheffield said that’s where it was headed.
Ms. McKeel added, very much so.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the Board’s preferred next steps would be, given that the MPO met the
following day. She noted that City Council had already taken care of their business.
Ms. Palmer said the Board just needed to vote to tell the MPO that it had approved the plan.
Ms. McKeel said the Board would need to direct its representatives on the MPO.
At this time, motion was offered by Ms. McKeel to direct Ms. Mallek and Mr. Sheffield, as
representatives on the MPO, to support the package as presented by Mr. Shucet and the advisory panel,
for the MPO’s vote on May 28, 2014. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd said he would not vote for the package because he disagreed with all of the “honorable
ideas here put forward,” but believes it is the wrong decision for the community, and feels the Board will
regret it in the long run. He added that he can’t support it because he loves the community too much.
Ms. McKeel said they all love their community, and that’s why they’re here.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
Ms. Dittmar said there would be others that may feel this was a very bad move on the Board’s
part, but what they did was instruct their members of the MPO to join City Council, which has instructed its
MPO members to support the conceptual elements of the plan. She stated that much work is ahead to
find out what that means in terms of sequencing and studies, and this goes beyond communication, with
the need for a group of people who are at the table for each decision who understand what the studies are
saying, and to determine that there is precedent already in the Comm onwealth. Ms. Dittmar said some
people brought up McIntire, but that was a “laissez-faire approach” to road building, and the County can
proceed differently. She stated that Mr. Foley would come to the June 4 Board meeting with research as
to how other states do this, and do it well, but also with responses to ideas gathered through this public
comment. Ms. Dittmar added that they have a very attentive Board of Supervisors that would stand by the
business community 100% as they go through the process to improve the roads in the community, and
finally have the ability to attend to some other things with a full concentration.
Mr. Foley clarified that he would have that information for their June 11 meeting, not June 4.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
There were no other matters from the Board.
_______________
May 27, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 9. Adjourn
At 10:00 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 09/03/2014
Initials: EWJ