RE_ _External_ RE_ U-4738_ Cape Fear Crossing_ Impact of tolling on LEDPA selection_ and timing of the preliminary design_

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Brittingham, Cathy
Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 3:10 PM
To:Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc:Huggett, Doug; Steenhuis, Joanne; Chapman, Amy; Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); Lane, Stephen
Subject:RE: \[External\] RE: U-4738, Cape Fear Crossing, Impact of tolling on LEDPA selection,
and timing of the preliminary design?
Attachments:Mapping Products and Design Details, NCDOT September 2012.pdf
Hi Monte,

Thanks for your reply!

The response about tolling makes sense to me, and it seems to correlate with what was done on the I-540 project
according to someone else I talked to.

Regarding functional designs versus preliminary designs, I'm still not aware of when the decision was made that the
LEDPA decision for U-4738 would be based on functional designs. At the meeting earlier this week, I think the
consultant said that they would not have preliminary designs done prior to CP3, and that the more refined impacts
based on slope stakes plus 25 feet would be based on the functional designs, and therefore less accurate. If the
preliminary designs are not done prior to CP3 then my recommendation would be that it be noted on the concurrence
form or in the meeting minutes as a change to the usual process, with a justification.

FYI, I found the attached presentation in my files that was given by NCDOT at an Inter-agency Coordination meeting in
2012. It provides good descriptions of the differences between functional designs, preliminary designs, and final
designs.

Sincerely,

Cathy

Cathy Brittingham, Transportation Project Coordinator N.C. Division of Coastal Management
[phone] phone
[e-mail]

Mailing Address: :
c/o DWR Transportation Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Physical Address:
512 North Salisbury Street
Archdale Building
12th Floor, Room 1204C
Raleigh, NC 27604

1

Please visit https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/ for more information about the N.C. Division of
Coastal Management.
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: Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 2:32 PM
To: Lane, Stephen <[e-mail]>; Brittingham, Cathy <[e-mail]>; Shaver, Brad E
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Steenhuis,
Joanne <[e-mail]>
Cc: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: U-4738, Cape Fear Crossing, Impact of tolling on LEDPA selection, and timing of the
preliminary design?

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Hi Cathy,

I'll try to build on Stephen's email below - if anyone else has other information, feel free to share.

FHWA told me yesterday that the toll component of this project is not a factor in its' practicability. In other words,
NCDOT would build this project even if they had to entirely fund their portion without tolls. So they are looking for a
LEDPA decision that is not tied to those alternatives that provide adequate toll revenue to build the project. I've copied
a page from their recent DEIS that talks about this approach (see attached). This page states the only benefit that tolls
would provide on this project is to speed up the construction.

You are absolutely correct that this is a different scenario than we have seen on other toll facilities - where NCDOT is
dependent on the economic viability of collecting tolls for an alternative to be practicable. Because of that, I wanted to
check with our Attorney to ensure that it is appropriate to remove tolls from our LEDPA decision and push the revenue
assessment back beyond the CP3 decision. It looks like we are okay to proceed with this as proposed, as long as we
adequately document the factors we used to make the LEDPA decision (this includes documenting the fact that tolls did
not drive the LEDPA decision). We don't want to give the impression that we totally ignored tolls, but describe their
specific place in making this decision.

As far as preliminary vs. functional.....NCDOT should go to preliminary plans (slope stakes +25 ft.) between CP2 and 2A,
unless the Merger Team makes a decision to stay at functional plans beyond CP2. With that said, it's probably a good
idea for them to present both impact amounts (as discussed during the meeting) to ensure that you are seeing some
reasonably realistic numbers for the LEDPA decision.

Hope this helps -

Monte

-----Original Message-----
From: Lane, Stephen \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 9:13 AM
2

To: Brittingham, Cathy <[e-mail]>; Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]>
Cc: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] RE: \[External\] RE: U-4738, Cape Fear Crossing, Impact of tolling on LEDPA selection, and
timing of the preliminary design?

Hi Cathy,

Regarding your question on tolling, I would say that as long as all of the remaining alternatives are buildable
(practicable) without tolling, then I would suggest that the tolling information would not be required before the CP3
meeting. Conversely, if they are not all buildable (practicable) without tolling, then it would seem the tolling
information would be critical to our decision. I will have to dig into the files before I can respond to your question on
functional versus preliminary design requirements at CP3.

Thanks,
Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 7:39 AM
To: Brittingham, Cathy <[e-mail]>; Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Steenhuis, Joanne
<[e-mail]>; Lane, Stephen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: U-4738, Cape Fear Crossing, Impact of tolling on LEDPA selection, and timing of the preliminary
design?

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Hi Cathy,

I want to give a good and accurate answer to your questions, but I need to check a couple of things first. Hopefully, I'll
be ready to respond later this morning. I didn't want you to think that I had forgotten....

Monte

-----Original Message-----
From: Brittingham, Cathy \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 3:04 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY
CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Steenhuis, Joanne
<[e-mail]>; Lane, Stephen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] U-4738, Cape Fear Crossing, Impact of tolling on LEDPA selection, and timing of the
preliminary design?

Hello,

3

Regarding the LEDPA decision for U-4738, Cape Fear Crossing, I have procedural questions about the impact of tolling on
selection of the LEDPA, and about why NCDOT has not yet prepared the preliminary designs. I did not want to raise
these questions during the meeting today to avoid creating unnecessary problems or confusion.

Tolling

The information package for the pre-CP3 meeting today contains a statement: "Once a preferred alternative is selected,
updated traffic forecasts will be prepared as a toll road and non-toll scenario to determine if funding the project via tolls
is feasible."

My only experience working on a toll road was with R-2576. On that project the Preferred Alternative Report prepared
in January 2011
(BlockedBlockedhttps://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/MidCurrituckBridgeDocuments/Preferred%20Alternative%20Report
%20January%202011.pdf) included an analysis of toll revenue as a factor for selection of the LEDPA. This was relevant
to the decision of practicability because some alternatives would be more attractive than others to the travelling public,
therefore some alternatives would be more likely to collect adequate toll revenue to build the project.

Do you think the toll revenue analysis should be conducted prior to LEDPA on this project?

Preliminary Design

According to the merger process information documents, preliminary designs are completed prior to CP2A. I am trying
to figure out if the merger process has changed, or if this project is deviating from the merger process. When was a
decision made that the LEDPA decision for U-4738 would be based on functional designs? My involvement with this
project starts in 2017, so perhaps it happened before then?

Thanks!

Cathy

Cathy Brittingham, Transportation Project Coordinator

N.C. Division of Coastal Management

4

[phone] phone

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

Mailing Address: :

c/o DWR Transportation Permitting Unit

1617 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Physical Address:

512 North Salisbury Street

Archdale Building

12th Floor, Room 1204C

Raleigh, NC 27604

Please visit BlockedBlockedhttps://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/ for more information about the
N.C. Division of Coastal Management.

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

5