20081809 Ver 1_Email_20090707

Gregory, Sonia G C $O
From: Wrenn, Brian
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:03 AM O?
To: Gregory, Sonia
Subject: FW: R-2233B Rutherfordton Bypass CP #3 alternative comparisons
please scan and file, thanks. one more coming
From: Wainwright, David
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:58 AM
To: Wrenn, Brian
Subject: FW: R-2233B Rutherfordton Bypass CP #3 alternative comparisons
I think Chris has an opinion....
David Wainwright
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
Raleigh, NC
David. WaimvriahtrP)ncdenr.aov
919-715-3415
PLEASE NOTE THAT MY E-MAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED TO: [e-mail]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:55 AM
To: El-Amin, Jameelah M
Cc: David. [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Chambers, Marla J.; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: R-2233B Rutherfordton Bypass CP #3 alternative comparisons
Jameelah: I have reviewed the June 9th information. The revised LOS analysis was interesting.
Unfortunately, the LEDPA is a Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) term that is also defined on Page 25 of
the Merger 01 Glossary of Terms. It is the alternative that meets purpose and need and has the
least damaging impact to waters of the U.S., unless this alternative results in other significant adverse
impacts.
The US 74A Alternative has approx. 24% less impacts to jurisdictional streams (2,863 If)
The US 74A Alternative has 11% fewer residential relocations than Alt. 3.
The US 74A Alternative 37% less impact to Prime/Important Farmland.
The US 74A Alternative has less impacts to Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf.
The US 74A Alternative has 0.1 acres less impact to wetlands.
The US 74A Alternative costs 10.3% ($23 million) less than Alt. 3.
The additional information Page 1 states: "Alternative 3 and Alternative 74A both meet the
project purpose and need".
None of the other human or natural resource impact differences between Alternative 3 and Alternative US
74A raise to the level of significant.
There are 'future' traffic operational differences between the two. However, much of the traffic analysis
issues are beyond the design Year. EPA can not reasonably utilize what future traffic conditions may be
beyond the planning horizon and what future projects may be needed to address any deficiencies in the
proiect study area.
EPA is prepared to select Alternative US 74A as the LEDPA at the next concurrence meeting. Thank you.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
-----"EI-Amin, Jameelah M" <ielamin(d)ncdot.gov> wrote: -----
To: "David. K.Baker(a)usace.army.mil" <David. K. Baker(a)usace.army.mil >, Chris.
M i litscher/R4/USEPA/US@ EPA, "marella buncickCa)fws.gov" <marella buncickCo)fws.gov>, "Chambers,
Marla J." <marla.chambers(a)ctc.net>, "David.WainwrightColncmall.net" <David.Wainwright(d)ncmai1.net>,
"Renee.Gledhill-EarleyCd)ncmail.net" <Renee.Gledhill-EarleyO)ncmail.net>
From: "El-Amin, Jameelah M" <jelamin(a)ncdot.gov>
Date: 06/29/2009 03:11PM
Subject: R-2233B Rutherfordton Bypass CP #3 alternative comparisons
Good afternoon,
I hope you all enjoyed your weekend. As noted in the CP #3 merger meeting held on April
21, 2009 at 9:00am, NCDOT's preferred alternative is alternative 3. This is a follow up
e-mail concerning the additional comparative information on alternative 3 and alternative
US 74A that was e-mailed to you on June 9th as a result of the merger meeting. If the
information presented is acceptable please let me know at your earliest convenience so
that we can move forward in selecting a LEDPA.
Thanks,
Jameelah
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.
2
Gregory, Sonia
From: Wrenn, Brian
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:02 AM
To:. Gregory, Sonia
Subject: FW: R-2233B Rutherfordton Bypass CP #3 alternative comparisons
Please scan and file. thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wainwright, David
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 7:15 AM
To: Wrenn, Brian
Subject: FW: R-2233B Rutherfordton Bypass CP #3 alternative comparisons
More Rutherford Bypass comments.
David Wainwright
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
Raleigh, NC
David.Wainwrisht(@ncdenr.gov
919-715-3415
PLEASE NOTE THAT MY E-MAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED TO: Dav_id.WainwriRht(@ncdenr.eov
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marla Chambers [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 3:51 PM
To: E1-Amin, Jameelah M; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
marella [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: R-2233B Rutherfordton Bypass CP #3 alternative comparisons
I appreciate the additional information provided. The unconventional
comparisons were an interesting way to look at it. However, I'm not
persuaded that Alternative 3 is the LEDPA. The information indicated that
portions of Alternative US 74A will operate at LOS D in 2030, but not which
portions or how much of the roadway, and I believe most projects consider
LOS D to be an acceptable LOS. I would be more interested in seeing a
prediction of when Alt. US 74A would need additional improvements, what
those improvements would entail & what the additional impacts to the natural
& human environment would likely be. Also, at what point would improvements
to Alt. US 74A corridor no longer be feasible (cost effective) and a bypass
of the bypass would be necessary? I'm guessing these questions may be very
difficult or impossible to answer, trying to look beyond the 2030 horizon
with any confidence. With the project not being funded yet, I wonder if, by
the time funding is provided, better predictions can be made of the traffic
conditions in 2030 and beyond that may lead to a different conclusion, but
at this time and based on current information it seems clear that the.LEDPA
is Alternative US 74A.
Marla J. Chambers
Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
12275 Swift Road
Oakboro, NC 28129
phone & fax: [phone]
cell: 704-984-1070
marla.chambersPctc.net
www.ncwildlife.org
-----Original Message-----
From: E1-Amin, Jameelah M [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:12 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Chambers, Marla J.; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: R-2233B Rutherfordton Bypass CP #3 alternative comparisons
Good afternoon,
I hope you all enjoyed your weekend. As noted in the CP #3 merger meeting
held on April 21, 2009 at 9:00am, NCDOT's preferred alternative is
alternative 3. This is a follow up e-mail concerning the additional
comparative information on alternative 3 and alternative US 74A that was
e-mailed to you on June 9th as a result of the merger meeting. If the
information presented is acceptable please let me know at your earliest
convenience so that we can move forward in selecting a LEDPA.
Thanks,
Jameelah
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2
US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass
TIP Project R-2233B
Alternative 3 and Alternative US 74A Comparison
Alternative 3 and Alternative US 74A both meet the project purpose and need.
Alternative US 74A will impact fewer homes, less wetlands, less streams and will cost
less than Alternative 3. However, Alternative 3 will operate at a higher level of service,
provide shorter travel time and will likely provide a safer facility than Alternative
US 74A.
Because these two alternatives do not function equally well, selection of a
preferred alternative based simply on impacts and costs is not appropriate. These two
alternatives should be compared on a cost/effectiveness basis. The preferred alternative
should be selected based on the alternative with the least cost/impact per unit of benefit.
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve
travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
Below are the results of cost/effectiveness analyses comparing Alternatives 3 and
US 74A on the three components of the project purpose statement.
Reduce Congestion
A purpose of the project is to reduce congestion. By the year 2030, without the
proposed project, portions of existing US 221 will operate at level of service E, with
some signalized intersections operating at level of service F. Portions of Alternative
US 74A will operate at level of service D in 2030, while Alternative 3 will operate at
level of service A or B in 2030. Alternative US 74A will improve the capacity of the
US 221 by one "letter grade", while Alternative 3 will improve the level of service by
three. The table below presents a comparison of the impacts of the alternatives per "letter
grade" improvement in level of service.
1
Impacts per Level of Service Improvement
Alt.3 Alt. 74A
Homes
(Number per *) 33 88
Businesses
(Number per *) 9 32
Wetlands
(Acres per *) 0.27 0.7
Streams
(Feet per *) 4,021 9,200
Farmland
(Acres per *) 120.72 226.76
Total Cost
(Millions S per *) $74.333 $200
* _ "Letter grade" im provement in level
of service.
As the table above shows, Alternative 3 has the lowest impacts and costs per
"letter grade" improvement in level of service.
Improve Safety
Another purpose of the project is to improve safety along US 221. For the years
2004 through 2007, the total crash rate for existing US 221 was 161.58 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles (ACC/100MVM).
The portion of Alternative US 74A which involves improving existing US 74A
(Railroad Avenue) would be constructed as a four-lane roadway with partial control of
access. The 2005-2007 statewide average total crash rate for four-lane divided US routes
with partial control of access was 152.65 ACC/100MVM. Alternative 3 would be
constructed as a four-lane roadway with full control of access. The 2005-2007 statewide
average total crash rate for four-lane divided US routes with full control of access was
113.81 ACC/100MVM.
Based on a comparison of the statewide total crash rates, it appears that
Alternative 3 would provide a safer facility than Alternative US 74A. Of course, the
actual future crash rates for either alternative cannot be accurately predicted. The actual
future crash rates on the facility after it is built will be different, and may be higher, than
these statewide averages. However, for purposes of comparing these two alternatives, the
difference between the 2004-2007 crash rate on US 221 and the 2005-2007 statewide
average for the different facility types has been used to represent the potential reduction
in accident rates along the US 221 corridor. The table below compares the impacts of the
alternatives per potential reduction in the crash rate on the US 221 corridor.
2
Impacts per Potential Reduction in Crash Rate
Alt.3 Alt. 74A
Homes
(Number per *) 2.07 9.85
Businesses
(Number per *) 0.57 3.58
Wetlands
(Acres per *) 0.02 0.08
Streams
(Feet per *) 252.52 1,030.24
Farmland
(Acres per *) 7.58 25.39
Total Cost
(Millions $ per *) $4.67 $22.40
* - Potential reduction in crashes
(Accidents per 100 Million Vehicle Miles)
As the table above shows, Alternative 3 has the lowest incremental impacts for all
resources.
Reduce Travel Time
Another purpose of the project is to improve travel time along the US 221
corridor. The approximately ten mile trip along existing US 221 within the project limits
now takes approximately twenty minutes. Alternative US 74A will reduce travel time to
eleven minutes, while Alternative 3 will reduce travel time to a little less than nine
minutes. The table below presents a comparison of the impacts of the alternatives per
minute travel time saved.
Impacts per Minute Travel Time Saved
Alt.3 Alt. 74A
Homes
(Number per *) 8.84 9.87
Businesses
(Number per *) 2.41 3.59
Wetlands
(Acres per *) 0.07 0.08
Streams
(Feet per *) 1,077 1,031
Farmland
(Acres per *) 32.34 25.42
Total Cost
(Millions per *) $19.91 $22.42
* - Minute travel tim e saved.
3
As the table above shows, Alternative 3 has the lowest impacts and costs per
minute travel time saved for all resources but streams and •farmland.
Additional Concerns
In addition to higher incremental impacts, another concern regarding Alternative
US 74A is that additional improvements may be required shortly after the design year.
The proposed bypass is not currently funded for construction, which means construction
will not be until sometime after 2015. It is possible that if Alternative US74A was
selected for the bypass, additional improvements beyond those currently proposed would
be required.
Alternative 3 would have an adverse effect on the Ruth Elementary School.
Alternative 3 would require some right of way from the school property, but the school
building would not be affected and access would still be provided to the property. The
adverse effect determination was based on the possibility of the school property being
redeveloped because of its proximity to the bypass.
The table below presents a comparison of Alternative 3 and Alternative US 74A.
4
Table I
Alternative Comparisons
Alternative 3 US 74A
Residential Relocatees 99 88
Business Relocatees 27 32
Business Employees (estimated) 102 159
Wetlands Affected (acres)* 0.8 0.7
Stream Impacts (feet)* 12,063 9,200
Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf
Impacts (sq feet) 412.0 371.5
Historic Properties In Corridor 4 5
Prime /Important Farmland Impacted (acres) 362.16 226.76
Comments For At Public Hearing 0 10
Comments Against At Public Hearing 0 0
Level of Service A-B A-D
Travel Time 9 minutes 1 l minutes
Length New Location (miles) 7.2 3.8
Total Length (miles) 8.5 8.7
Total Cost (millions) $223.0 $200.0