HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140762 All Versions_Meeting Minutes_20080122
Project: R-2915
Subject: Minutes of Concurrence Point 1 Meeting
Meeting Date: 1/22/08
Meeting Location: NCDOT Transportation Building - Board Room
Present:
Monte Matthews US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Troy Wilson US Fish and Wildlife Service
David Wainwright NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Amy Euliss NCDENR Division of Water Quality - Winston-Salem Regional Office
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Teresa Hart NCDOT /PDEA
Stacy Oberhausen NCDOT / PDEA
Joseph Qubain NCDOT / PDEA
Carla Dagnino NCDOT / PDEA /NEU
Erin Cheely NCDOT / PDEA / NEU
Jennifer Harrod NCDOT / PDEA/ NEU
Glenn Mumford NCDOT / Roadway Design Unit
Susan Lancaster NCDOT / Roadway Design Unit
James Dunlop NCDOT / TESSB / Congestion Management
Erin Hendee NCDOT / TESSB / Congestion Management
Tim Coggins NCDOT / Structure Design Unit
Sarah Smith NCDOT / Transportation Planning Branch
Zaneta Adme NCDOT / Transportation Planning Branch
Meredith McDiarmid NCDOT / Work Zone Traffic Control Unit
Katina Thompson NCDOT / TIP Development Unit
Craig Hughes High Country RPO
Frank Vick Parsons Transportation Group
Dana Shiflett Parsons Transportation Group
David Garrett Parsons Transportation Group
Monte Matthews opened the meeting by requesting that meeting attendees introduce
themselves. Joseph Qubain noted that the Table of Contents in the handout would serve as the
meeting agenda.
Frank Vick noted that he would follow the meeting handout and explained the errata sheets.
Tables 2 and 3 (pages 16 and 17) are replacements for the handout. Tables 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, and
1-8 and Exhibit 1-3 are replacements for the draft Purpose and Need Statement. The changes
are highlighted in red. The following is a review of portions of the presentation:
R-2915 is a widening study for US 221. The purpose of the subject meeting is to discuss the
study area boundaries and the Purpose of and Need for the project.
The project study area is located in Ashe and Watauga Counties. The project is 16.1 miles
in length and begins at US 421 and goes north to the Town of Jefferson, at the intersection
of NC 88 and US 221 Business. The road is classified as a Major Collector, is posted at 55
miles per hour, and has a 22-foot wide pavement.
In 1993, a Feasibility Study was performed for 12.6 miles of the project. The additional 3.5
miles was added in 2003.
1
3
Water quality concerns, trout streams, and high-quality waters present in the study area led
to the inclusion of the project into the Merger process in 2005.
The logical termini indicated in the handout meet the criteria set forth by FHWA of
independent utility and as a link in the regional transportation system. The northern terminus
ties into a 4-lane roadway, and the southern terminus is a "T" intersection with US 421,
which is also a 4-lane facility.
Environmental issues include several community facilities, the Blue Ridge Parkway, Mount
Jefferson State Natural Area, high-quality waters and trout streams, and the Ashe County
Courthouse (historic site).
Design issues include horizontal and vertical alignment issues, as shown on Exhibit 2 of the
handout. As shown on the exhibit, a portion of the project has been improved, while the
more southerly portion has not. The feasibility study called for a 4-lane divided highway. The
proposed typical section will be addressed at a future concurrence meeting. There is a
potential need for an interchange at US 421, which has been identified as a high-accident
area.
The study area boundaries include a 1,500-foot radius at US 421 (to allow for possible
future interchange), variable area for avoidance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, 6,000-foot total
width from Heg Greene Road to the Baldwin area, and 4,000-foot total width from Baldwin to
the northern project terminus. The various widths are to allow for some roadway
realignments, if necessary for improvement of horizontal alignment.
Mr. Militscher asked if the 1,500-foot radius semicircle at US 421 would be sufficient to
encompass the potential future interchange. Mr. Vick noted that at a total width of 3,000 feet,
the area should be large enough.
Mr. Wainwright noted that there are potential issues with a stream mitigation site along US 421
directly west of the US 221 T-intersection, in the event that an interchange is constructed at that
intersection.
Ms. Buncick questioned the effect of the proposed US 221 improvements on the viewscape for
the Blue Ridge Parkway, which is directly east of US 221 near its terminus at US 421. Mr. Vick
noted that this would be addressed as we progress in the project.
Ms. Buncick commented that the Park Service should be invited to the next concurrence
meeting, and that the portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway with the potentially affected viewshed
should be included in the study area boundaries. Ms. Shiflett noted that the study area boundary
selection, when done, was concerned with intentional exclusion of the Parkway area from
consideration as a location for US 221 improvements, rather than as a definition of areas
potentially affected by those improvements. Mr. Qubain commented that the Parkway
viewscape area can be included in the study area with the understanding that this project will
not be constructed on the Parkway. Mr. Vick noted that coordination would be held with the Park
Service.
Ms. Shiflett commented that the study area boundaries, as conceived initially, were aimed at
providing the public with information as to which property owners might or might not be affected.
Ms. Chambers suggested moving the study area to the west in the vicinity of the Blue Ridge
Parkway. Mr. Vick commented that shifting the study area west would potentially affect the
stream mitigation site identified. Ms. Buncick stated that the inclusion of the viewscape as a part
of the study area could be handled with a notation.
Mr. Vick continued the meeting with discussion relating to the Purpose and Need.. The primary
purposes of the project are to improve traffic flow and improve system linkage. A secondary
2
purpose of the project is to improve and enhance safety. This is a change from the handout,
which lists safety as a primary purpose.
Mr. Matthews asked why safety was changed to a secondary purpose. Mr. Qubain responded
that traffic flow and system linkage are sufficient reasons to construct this project. If safety is
included, it becomes the primary purpose Mr. Riggsbee added that if safety is the primary
purpose, a much more extensive analysis of crash data would then be needed to justify
including safety.
Mr. Vick noted that in terms of system linkage, US 221 ties into the US 221 Intrastate Corridor
which provides multi-lane access between Boone/Blowing Rock and Jefferson, improves access
in conjunction with TIP Project R-2310, links to major collectors, and is a part of Strategic
Highway Corridor 13.
Mr. Vick commented that social/economic factors supporting the US 221 project include
anticipated population growth in Ashe and Watauga Counties, tourist attractions in the area,
growth of vacation homes in the area, Christmas tree and other industries, and Appalachian
State University.
Mr. Vick noted that levels of service for 2007 vary from C to E and LOS for 2035 are E and F.
There are also a number of intersections at or below LOS D.
Mr. Vick noted that in terms of safety and crash rates, there are 8 segments along US 221 that
exceeded the statewide rates. Accident severity exceeded for 4 segments and 2 intersections.
Higher rates tended to be along the older portions of the highway south of Baldwin. Several
roadway deficiencies (blind driveways, lack of shoulders, and insufficient passing sight distance)
may be contributing factors.
Mr. Vick commented that based on SAFETEA-LU requirements, public comment was solicited
on the project Purpose and Need via a newsletter mailed to members of the mailing list with a
comment form enclosed. Comments received to date as a result of that newsletter were
discussed. The predominant purpose given in the public comments was safety.
Mr. Wrenn asked if newsletters could be mailed to Merger team members. Mr. Qubain felt it was
a good idea, and noted that each agency will be added to the list.
Mr. Vick noted that most people who responded to the newsletter felt that the project is a good
idea. There were approximately 110 respondents as of the concurrence meeting. Mr. Qubain
mentioned that he had approximately 50 more comment forms from citizens, plus emails and
phone calls.
Mr. Qubain distributed the draft concurrence signature form, and noted that changes could be
made if needed.
Mr. Wainwright questioned the contention that the project will improve travel time. He asked if
any studies had been done to support this. Ms. Hendee commented that this is included in the
capacity analysis, i.e., levels of service provide some measure of delay. Mr. Wainwright pointed
out that the Purpose and Need Statement only shows data for an unimproved roadway.
Mr. Militscher suggested that a map or referenced exhibit be appended to the concurrence form
to provide clarification of the study area boundaries. For example, the form could say "see
Handout Exhibit 3."
3
A discussion was held of the number of lanes specified on the draft form:
Mr. Matthews noted that specifying a certain number of lanes in the concurrence form would
make him uncomfortable.
Mr. Qubain indicated that the project would not be more than 4 lanes.
Ms. Hart suggested eliminating "4-lane median divided" and replacing it with "multi-lane
facility."
Mr. Qubain commented that the project has to be divided. Ms. Hart noted that specifying a
multi-lane roadway would not preclude a median divided highway.
Mr. Hughes commented that the local citizens want a 4-lane divided highway; they will be
upset with another configuration.
Ms. Hart commented that "multi-lane facility" leaves all possible options open.
Mr. Vick noted that the typical section is the topic of discussion at the next CP meeting.
Ms. Oberhausen pointed out that there are several areas without a median.
Mr. Hughes stated that the local citizens definitely do not want a 3-lane highway.
Ms. Chambers felt that it was perhaps premature to present the Purpose and Need Statement
to the public prior to the review by the agencies and CP 1 meeting. Ms. Oberhausen noted that
PDEA will be presenting the draft Purpose and Need for public comments on all projects
although SAFETEA-LU only requires that it be done for EIS's. She also mentioned that the
exact wording determined through the Merger 01 process at CP 1 will be provided to the public.
Ms. Buncick commented that she is not accustomed to seeing the Purpose and Need
Statement, and asked if it applies to the entire project or just Jefferson and West Jefferson. Mr.
Qubain clarified that it applies to the whole project. Ms. Buncick commented that it needs to be
made clear that the Purpose and Need applies to the whole project.
Mr. Wainwright questioned the verbiage in the second bullet on the draft CP 1 concurrence form
that read "deficient connection." Mr. Qubain suggested that the phrasing "improve highway
connection between Boone/Blowing Rock and Jefferson" or "improve system connectivity" might
be better choices of words.
Mr. Wrenn commented that he wanted to eliminate alternatives that don't meet with the Purpose
and Need.
Mr. Wainwright commented that alternatives should be comparable based on travel time. Mr.
Qubain noted that since this is a widening project, it seems that the alternatives should be
compared based on impacts.
Mr. Militscher expressed the opinion that the second bullet on the draft form was not needed,
since it is only necessary to have one reason for Purpose and Need.
Mr. Qubain noted that the Purpose and Need applies to the project in general, and not to
specific alternatives. It was decided to eliminate the wording concerning "deficient connection."
Mr. Riggsbee commented that alleviating congestion needed to be included on the form.
4
Ms. Buncick asked if safety should really be listed as a secondary reason. Mr. Qubain
suggested that safety be listed as an "additional consideration" instead of "secondary reason."
Ms. Buncick noted that Mount Jefferson Natural Area, as well as the Blue Ridge Parkway,
should be added to the viewshed considerations.
Ms. Chambers raised the issue of animal collisions, which she noted had been addressed in the
safety section of the Purpose and Need Statement. She pointed out that there may be a need
for consideration of one or more wildlife crossings along the project. Increasing a roadway from
two to four lanes greatly increases the possibility of animal collisions. Mr. Qubain asked how
many animal crossings would be needed. Ms. Chambers indicated that areas would need to be
identified where animals tend to cross. Ms. Shiflett noted that there is sufficient crash data to
locate the animal collisions occurrences, as a starting point. Mr. Qubain asked if fencing would
be effective in reducing animal collisions. Ms. Chambers responded that fencing would only help
in terms of funneling animals to safer crossing areas; it would not deter animals from crossing
the road.
Ms. Chambers raised the issue of maintenance of public canoe access at the South Fork of the
New River, which is listed as Outstanding Resource Waters and Scenic. Mr. Vick asked if there
is existing canoe access in this location. Ms. Chambers was not certain if the access is currently
there and/or it is official. If it is not designated, it could conceivably be removed.
Ms. Chambers noted that there is a Memorandum of Agreement in the works with NCDOT that
concerns canoe and boating access. This project is not currently included, however, because it
is not a bridge replacement project.
Ms. Buncick asked Mr. Hughes if he was familiar with the canoe access on the South Fork of
the New River. He stated that he was not aware of it. Mr. Vick noted that based on the meeting
mapping, there does not appear to access from the highway.
Ms. Chambers commented that there are several canoeing groups that are promoting access
along various parts of the New River. She has maps with current and targeted access areas.
Mr. Hughes noted that the meeting information needs to be corrected to show that there is not a
traffic signal at Vernon Roten Road / NC 194.
Ms. Chambers asked where the other TIP projects referenced in the handout are located; they
are not identified on the exhibits. Ms. Shiflett commented that because some of the projects are
more regional in nature, the scope of the meeting handout exhibits did not encompass those
projects and therefore, they could not be shown.
The meeting concluded with members of the Merger Team signing the revised Concurrence
Point 1 form (attached).
Minutes prepared by Dana Shiflett (Parsons Transportation Group) and reviewed by NCDOT.
Submitted to Meeting Participants by e-mail on 31-3-2008
The foregoing constitutes our understanding of the matters discussed and the conclusions
reached. If there are any questions, corrections, omissions, or additional comments please
advise the author within five working days after receipt of these minutes.
cc: Meeting Participants
Project File
5