Feet-to-the-Fire Time for Layne, Kilpatrick

kilpatrick_layne
Virginia Highway Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick and Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne. Photo credit: Times-Dispatch

by James A. Bacon

Virginia taxpayers will have to suck up a $400 million to $500 million loss if the U.S. 460 upgrade between Petersburg and Suffolk never gets built, Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne told the House Appropriations Committee yesterday. “If everything totally went south, we … may end up with $500 [million] left of the $1.4 billion set aside,” he said, as quoted by the Times-Dispatch.

The fate of the mega-project is up in the air because the McDonnell administration signed a design-build contract with U.S. 460 Mobility Partners before obtaining all necessary environmental permits. At issue is the fate of an estimated 480 acres of wetlands along the proposed route of the interstate-quality highway. VDOT proposed to purchase wetlands credits from private mitigation banks to offset the wetlands destroyed by the project but the Corps has not yet determined whether that would be deemed an acceptable offset.

The hearings yesterday surfaced a lot of valuable information but missed perhaps the most critical issue of all: Members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved crucial financing for the project in October 2012 without ever being informed that wetlands mitigation was an issue.

I attended that meeting of the CTB and wrote a lengthy story about it. Board members expressed reservations about borrowing so much money to fund the project and sought assurances that the state’s exposure was limited. As I summed up the discussion at the time: “Administration officials insisted that the deal posed little risk of exposure to the state over its already-significant contribution.

The issue of obtaining wetlands permits, and the possibility that they might derail the project, never came up. View the PowerPoint presentation made by Charlie Kilpatrick, the No. 2 man at the Virginia Department of Transportation at the time, who was since promoted to Virginia Highway Commissioner. Kilpatrick’s presentation summarized the justification for the project and provided a detailed explanation of the business terms. The document never referred to the fact that VDOT had not yet obtained necessary permits from the Corps of Engineers.

When explaining rights and obligations of the various parties under the U.S. 460 Mobility Partners contract, the PowerPoint does allude obliquely to environmental issues:

compensation_events

But Kilpatrick did not brief the CTB on the unresolved issues with the Corps of Engineers. In a slide entitled “Next Steps,” he noted the need to obtain Federal Highway Administration approval for the project but made no mention of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Based on Kilpatrick’s presentation and the discussion that followed, the CTB voted October 17, 2012, to issue up to $425 million in tax-free bonds to help underwrite the cost of constructing the 55-mile highway. Without that approval, the project could not have proceeded.

Two weeks later, on Nov. 1, 2012, Dave Forster with the Virginian-Pilot wrote an article describing how the Army Corps of Engineers was unconvinced that the route selected by VDOT was the best option to minimize wetlands destruction. Forster cited correspondence that made it clear the discussions had been underway “for months” and that VDOT knew that failure to resolve the issues could result in the “project not moving forward”:

Tom Walker, regulatory branch chief for the Corps of Engineers’ Norfolk district, said VDOT has not submitted its permit application and that the agencies have been working for months to reach an agreement. He was scheduled to meet with VDOT staff today in Richmond to continue discussions.

“We haven’t been getting the information that we’ve been asking for,” Walker said Wednesday. “But they’ve been communicating with us somewhat regularly now.”

VDOT released a one-sentence statement through a spokeswoman: “We continue to have an open dialogue with the Corps to discuss these issues.” …

VDOT tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the Corps this summer that its chosen route was the best option and that no further study was needed. In a letter dated July 20, Richard Walton, chief of policy and environment for VDOT, wrote to the Corps’ Norfolk District commander that he was concerned the Corps’ position “overlooks critical information” that “will result in this important project not moving forward.”

Despite Forster’s public revelations of these issues, VDOT charged ahead, signing the contract with U.S. 460 Mobility Partners in late December.

The confluence of events raises the possibility that the McDonnell administration — then-Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton, then-Virginia Highway Commissioner Gregory Whirley and then-Deputy Commissioner Kilpatrick — deliberately withheld vital information about the wetlands permits from the CTB. If the action were deliberate, it would not have been the first time. The McDonnell administration also omitted critical information in its presentation to the CTB before a vote to approve funding for the controversial Charlottesville Bypass. In that episode, senior VDOT officials neglected to inform the CTB that VDOT staff had serious reservations about the official cost estimate for that project — concerns that proved to be amply justified. (I documented that deception in a December 2011 article, “In the Dark.”)

Connaughton is no longer Secretary of Transportation. He is slated to assume the presidency of the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association. Whirley has retired. But Kilpatrick has assumed the top spot at VDOT. And Layne, one of the most vocal advocates of the U.S. 460 project, now serves as transportation secretary. While he was not in a position of executive authority at the time, Layne was extremely active behind the scenes as chair of the bond-issuing authority and worked closely with the administration to get the project approved.

Governor Terry McAuliffe needs to grill Layne and Kilpatrick: “Were you aware of the Army Corp’s wetlands concerns in October 2012? Did you consider those concerns germane to the CTB decision to authorize the sale of $450 million in state bonds? If so, why did you not note those concerns during the CTB deliberations that month? Do you consider the withholding of vital information from the CTB to be acceptable behavior for officials in the McAuliffe administration?”

The four years of the McDonnell administration were a dark ages for openness and transparency in government — at least in the secretariat of transportation. McAuliffe needs to make it clear to his appointees and to the public at large that he will not tolerate the practices that led to the Charlottesville Bypass and Rt. 460 fiascos.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

24 responses to “Feet-to-the-Fire Time for Layne, Kilpatrick”

  1. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    How about grilling connaughton too?

    1. billsblots Avatar
      billsblots

      If there were a “Like” button I’d click it.

    2. Good idea. But any grilling would be after-the-fact. He can’t be sacked now.

    3. virginiagal2 Avatar
      virginiagal2

      Personally, I would really like to see that as well. From reports, it seems like he set a “no dissent” tone to the CTB – and when management does that, that’s when you have someone drive right off a cliff, without dissenting.

      Looking in from the outside, the choice of large projects seems really bizarre. We have huge transportation needs, and what gets picked is a low-use road through wetlands to service port traffic that they hope might one day occur, and a “bypass” that, from what I can gather, starts in outer strip mall-dom and ends in the middle of UVA’s North Grounds. What the holy heck kind of bypass is that?

      I have heard comments that the latter was to appease business interests in Lynchburg – but what was driving the former? Neither of these roads appears to make a speck of sense.

  2. billsblots Avatar
    billsblots

    The former Commissioner was Greg Whirley, not Worrell. Nonetheless. He was an accountant, come Inspector General or something, never a highway guy, who was appointed by McDonnell to replace David Ekern. Ekern had provided McDonnell campaign fodder by identifying the closure of some rest areas as part of Agency cost saving measures. Ekern resigned effective McDonnell’s inauguration day, the writing on the wall being in Arial Bold Size 34 Font. McDonnell appointed Whirley, seemingly for financial or budgetary reasons, instead of a national search for a transportation guy.

    I didn’t know that Kilpatrick was involved in this earlier as Deputy Commissioner, but I was clearly wrong. It appears he has direct impact on the apparent deception-by-omission. If so, will the Governor who appointed him Commissioner (I think?) ask for his resignation, or administer some other admonishment?

  3. billsblots Avatar
    billsblots

    It has been unrecognized, but thanks James Bacon for covering some of these proceedings at a time they must have seemed fairly unremarkable. I wish we had vigorous press pursuing the egregious unconstitutional bullying and power abuse at the national level in the IRS, EPA, White House, and so many more.

  4. Breckinridge Avatar
    Breckinridge

    At the heart of this, the McDonnell administration apparently discounted the Corps of Engineers concerns or was recklessly blind to the wetland’s issue and the risk it posed to the permits. It was full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. But the McAuliffe administration has its own political reasons for accepting the environmental concerns on their face and trying to kill the project. I’m still not sure whether either is being fully “transparent” to use the word that was being stressed at the Appropriations Committee meeting. This road and the 29 Bypass were collateral damage from the election.

    But good reporting on Bacon’s part to pull up the presentations from 18 months ago. The permitting issue was clearly something that should have been stressed.

    I suspect the state is on the hook for far more than $500 million if the project dies completely. Layne said the state might have $500 million LEFT out of the $1.4 billion committed and that sounds like $900 million down the drain to me. It will have wasted a large portion of that even if it goes forward with another corridor. Kind of overlooked in all the coverage (including this) was how hard Layne was arguing yesterday that another route might work and the project might come back. “I do believe we will get a permit.”

    1. I agree, I would be extremely surprised to see the project tank completely. Instead of spending $25 million on wetlands mitigation (a number I pulled out of the hat for purposes of illustration), VDOT should be able to negotiate a deal to spend $50 million. The wetlands mitigation figure will cost a whole lot more than originally envisioned, but it’s a relatively small part of the overall project.

    2. re:McDonnell administration ..

      nope. this is typical VDOT – which spans administrations.

      VDOT intensely dislikes the Army Corp.. considers them illegitimate and the favor is returned.

      but the funny thing with these new road proposals – regardless of the reason why is the parallel narrative about how many bridges and roads are in terrible condition and need rehabilitation… and yet – the money goes for new proposals.

      It’s like they are two separate issues – even though they both get funded from the same basic pot of money.

      we build new roads.. some of questionable merit instead of using that money to fix decades-old bridge and road needs.

  5. I think some spring cleaning is in order at VDOT and perhaps the resignation of these two would be a good start. There’s really no excuse for exposing the Commonwealth to project costs like this without a shovel hitting the ground.

    1. billsblots Avatar
      billsblots

      Truly, consider this. Layne and Kilpatrick stand to be in charge of all transportation decisions for the next 4 years, if nothing changes.

  6. When government spends hundreds of millions of projects for “economic development,” the development should pay for the bulk of those costs.

    1. billsblots Avatar
      billsblots

      true enough, but in this case the Commonwealth may spend $400,000,000 on a vapor project. Thin air. Nothing in return, just consulting firms walking away with huge paychecks.

  7. ajfroggie Avatar
    ajfroggie

    James, should this project completely tank, is there any possibility of using the bond proceeds to improve existing 460? Or are we, to coin the phrase, stuck in a rut?

    Never did like this project, or some of its purported benefits. For starters, the only areas of Hampton Roads it really benefits are those on the Southside and west of the Elizabeth River (namely those in Portsmouth, Suffolk, and western Chesapeake). It doesn’t help out Norfolk, Virginia Beach, or eastern Chesapeake, as those people still have to get across the congested facilities across the Elizabeth River to access any “new” 460 (nevermind the new tolls on the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels). It doesn’t help the Peninsula, because virtually all of I-64’s recurring traffic problems are Peninsula-driven (pun intended), not counting overheight trucks at the HRBT.

    Furthermore, building the new 460 would put additional strain on both the Suffolk Bypass and on 58 between Suffolk and Bowers Hill. Silver lining in this is it would finally force VDOT to do something about the intersections between Suffolk and Bowers Hill. Bad thing is that I bet those spillover improvement needs weren’t factored into the 460 cost analysis.

    And the “alternatives” from that 2012 CTB briefing are aghast. There’s no need to widen 64 in Newport News or Hampton, yet VDOT included that “cost” anyway in it’s alternative analysis.

    And VDOT’s required contribution is huge. Stupidly huge. That’s $700+ million that could’ve been used for more pressing improvements that would’ve benefited A LOT more people and provided A LOT more economic potential…namely widening the critical chokepoint on 64 (Jefferson Ave to Williamsburg), or improving safety along the existing 460 (needed whether a new 460 is built or not), or improving 58 (a much more cost-effective way to get an “alternative for trucks” out of Hampton Roads). Or even as simple as buying down more of the toll cost at the Midtown and Downtown…I bet Portsmouth would’ve loved that.

    1. Yes, there is a justification for the U.S. 460 project — an economic development justification. (Search back articles from Bacon’s Rebellion on the articles tab for the in-depth reporting I did.) A plausible case can be made that the road will stimulate port traffic and related industrial development. But the McDonnell never conducted a risk-adjusted ROI analysis. There are lots of risks, and the ROI is very fuzzy. I don’t have a problem with investing large sums to stimulate economic development — I just want to be sure that the pay0ff, adjusted for the risks, will be worth it. That case has yet to be made.

      1. ajfroggie Avatar
        ajfroggie

        Given that we have *HUGE* traffic and transportation (not to mention road/bridge repair and replacement) needs throughout, I just don’t see “economic development” as a valid justification.

        But back to my original question: if the “new” 460 gets quashed, is Virginia out the bond money? Or can they use it to improve existing 460?

  8. cpzilliacus Avatar
    cpzilliacus

    ajfroggie wrote:

    James, should this project completely tank, is there any possibility of using the bond proceeds to improve existing 460? Or are we, to coin the phrase, stuck in a rut?

    Can we improve U.S. 460 without moving it onto an entirely new (and expensive) alignment?

    Without a contiguous and continuous improved highway, tolls may not be a viable option.

    Never did like this project, or some of its purported benefits. For starters, the only areas of Hampton Roads it really benefits are those on the Southside and west of the Elizabeth River (namely those in Portsmouth, Suffolk, and western Chesapeake). It doesn’t help out Norfolk, Virginia Beach, or eastern Chesapeake, as those people still have to get across the congested facilities across the Elizabeth River to access any “new” 460 (nevermind the new tolls on the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels). It doesn’t help the Peninsula, because virtually all of I-64′s recurring traffic problems are Peninsula-driven (pun intended), not counting overheight trucks at the HRBT.

    It probably does not justify something as expensive as what was proposed for the U.S. 460 corridor, but please do not forget network redundancy, which is a good thing.

    Though it is nice to have enough traffic on the improved network links to justify spending that kind of money.

    Furthermore, building the new 460 would put additional strain on both the Suffolk Bypass and on 58 between Suffolk and Bowers Hill. Silver lining in this is it would finally force VDOT to do something about the intersections between Suffolk and Bowers Hill. Bad thing is that I bet those spillover improvement needs weren’t factored into the 460 cost analysis.

    Excellent point. The road west of Bowers Hill does seem to be overloaded.

    And the “alternatives” from that 2012 CTB briefing are aghast. There’s no need to widen 64 in Newport News or Hampton, yet VDOT included that “cost” anyway in it’s alternative analysis.

    Well, I-64 sure as Hades need to be re-paved much of the way from Richmond to Hampton, even if it is not widened.

    And VDOT’s required contribution is huge. Stupidly huge. That’s $700+ million that could’ve been used for more pressing improvements that would’ve benefited A LOT more people and provided A LOT more economic potential…namely widening the critical chokepoint on 64 (Jefferson Ave to Williamsburg), or improving safety along the existing 460 (needed whether a new 460 is built or not), or improving 58 (a much more cost-effective way to get an “alternative for trucks” out of Hampton Roads). Or even as simple as buying down more of the toll cost at the Midtown and Downtown…I bet Portsmouth would’ve loved that.

    This would have required a higher-level analysis of the transportation network from Hampton Roads all the way to I-95, including roads like I-64, I-664, U.S. 460, U.S. 58, U.S. 17, U.S. 258 and U.S. 13. A lot of data collection and a lot of analysis, and careful review would have been required.

  9. re: ” This would have required a higher-level analysis of the transportation network from Hampton Roads all the way to I-95, including roads like I-64, I-664, U.S. 460, U.S. 58, U.S. 17, U.S. 258 and U.S. 13. A lot of data collection and a lot of analysis, and careful review would have been required.”

    Not the way that VDOT typically does business. Typically a road is proposed and VDOT is asked to study it but to VDOT -the task is to basically put together a pro-build case. They hate NEPA and they really do not care for alternatives analyses.

    they quite often will construct analyses that “look” like comparative analyses but their mind is usually already made up and the alternatives invariable fail to outperform the intended, desired route.

    this is how they end up with continued Army Corp and other opposition at the end of the study. VDOT has no intention of actually developing an alternative that would pass Army Corp muster or for instance, one in Cville that lacks important and needed ancillary infrastructure like interchanges and such.

    Building new roads though is not for the faint of heart. No matter what you pick – there invariably will be opposition so VDOT has developed this “us against them” culture in it’s new location road group.

    In short – Virginia does not really have a true alternatives analyses function.

  10. cpzilliacus Avatar
    cpzilliacus

    larryg wrote:

    Not the way that VDOT typically does business. Typically a road is proposed and VDOT is asked to study it but to VDOT -the task is to basically put together a pro-build case. They hate NEPA and they really do not care for alternatives analyses.

    Like NEPA or not, the law is not going away, and VDOT knows they must comply with its process requirements.

    they quite often will construct analyses that “look” like comparative analyses but their mind is usually already made up and the alternatives invariable fail to outperform the intended, desired route.

    How many of those routes have already been put into a county or municipal comprehensive plan document?

    Legally, they don’t matter in NEPA alternatives analysis (though IMO they should).

    this is how they end up with continued Army Corp and other opposition at the end of the study. VDOT has no intention of actually developing an alternative that would pass Army Corp muster or for instance, one in Cville that lacks important and needed ancillary infrastructure like interchanges and such.

    Federal environmental regulators are not saints either. They have been known to not play it straight (that helped to get USEPA Region IV Administrator Peter Kostmayer fired by the Clinton Administration in 1995 or 1996).

    Building new roads though is not for the faint of heart. No matter what you pick – there invariably will be opposition so VDOT has developed this “us against them” culture in it’s new location road group.

    I don’t know how the routing was developed in the case of the U.S. 460 project, but aren’t the VDOT L&D people often just following lines put down on a map by county or municipal planners and approved by the elected officials that those planners work for?

  11. NEPA does not require picking the “best”, least environmentally damaging route – any route for that matter but it DOES REQUIRE a hard look at alternatives AND the opportunity of other participants including the other Federal Resource agencies to comment and to stipulate what it would take for their permits.

    No they are not Saints either.. but they generally are trying to protect resources that they are required by law to protect – rather than damage resources for cause.

    are you saying the EPA head was fired for overzealous opposition to something?

    re: – comp plans – localities put all manner of roads in their comp plans – lines on a map, concepts, roads that will never be funded nor built much less a NEPA type analysis.

    where VDOT gets it’s “lines on a map” from do sometimes relate to a proposed road that has diverse, long-standing advocates.. they’ll follow it – because fundamentally what VDOT is and has always been is a road-building agency – but the money has to be there – and the Fed resource agencies are always involved.

    With US 460, it’s hard to tell who exactly were the advocates other than perhaps McDonnell and Connhaugton but the pattern that VDOT has a history of is not allowing the resource agencies help develop a preferred alternative and it often results in a end-game of chicken of who will blink and the Corps has had enough of VDOT’s way of doing business in Va.

    In NC – the Corp is involved from the get go and can have virtual veto power EARLY in the process.

    VDOT has never rolled that way and still doesn’t. Looking for who in the McDonnell administration “ignored” the Corp is silly – as this is and has been for a long time – standard VDOT practice no matter who the Gov is.

  12. cpzilliacus Avatar
    cpzilliacus

    larryg wrote:

    NEPA does not require picking the “best”, least environmentally damaging route – any route for that matter but it DOES REQUIRE a hard look at alternatives AND the opportunity of other participants including the other Federal Resource agencies to comment and to stipulate what it would take for their permits.

    That is correct.

    Some persons and activist groups are under the mistaken impression that NEPA does not allow projects that have any environmental impact.

    No they are not Saints either.. but they generally are trying to protect resources that they are required by law to protect – rather than damage resources for cause.

    are you saying the EPA head was fired for overzealous opposition to something?

    Kostmayer was the administrator of EPA Region 3 (covers Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the early years of the Clinton Administration (not the head of EPA), and yes, he was fired in part because he was opposed to ADHS Corridor H in West Virginia and Virginia [long sections of Corridor H in West Virginia are complete and open to traffic, none of it in Frederick County, Va. and Shenandoah County, Va. has been planned or engineered].

    re: – comp plans – localities put all manner of roads in their comp plans – lines on a map, concepts, roads that will never be funded nor built much less a NEPA type analysis.

    They may not even make it past the local metropolitan planning organization’s financially constrained long range plan.

    where VDOT gets it’s “lines on a map” from do sometimes relate to a proposed road that has diverse, long-standing advocates.. they’ll follow it – because fundamentally what VDOT is and has always been is a road-building agency – but the money has to be there – and the Fed resource agencies are always involved.

    That is pretty well standard operating procedure not just in Virginia.

    With US 460, it’s hard to tell who exactly were the advocates other than perhaps McDonnell and Connhaugton but the pattern that VDOT has a history of is not allowing the resource agencies help develop a preferred alternative and it often results in a end-game of chicken of who will blink and the Corps has had enough of VDOT’s way of doing business in Va.

    But ultimately, the Corps can decline to issue that Section 404 (of the Clean Water Act) permit, and without that, chicken or not, a project is not going to be built.

    In NC – the Corp is involved from the get go and can have virtual veto power EARLY in the process.

    They are in Maryland as well – though the same EPA Region 3 staff tried (and failed) to get the master-planned routing of the InterCounty Connector removed from consideration during the 1990’s EIS process.

    VDOT has never rolled that way and still doesn’t. Looking for who in the McDonnell administration “ignored” the Corp is silly – as this is and has been for a long time – standard VDOT practice no matter who the Gov is.

    Again, I don’t believe that VDOT can force the federal agencies to issue permits needed for a project.

    1. Some persons and activist groups are under the mistaken impression that NEPA does not allow projects that have any environmental impact.

      what NEPA requires is a complete, “hard look” analysis – which does allow groups to claim that they have “ignored” or “overlooked” something or made a wrong or inaccurate statement, etc… “substantiative” comments.

      “Kostmayer was the administrator of EPA Region 3 (covers Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (not the head of EPA), and yes, he was fired in part because he was opposed to ADHS Corridor H in West Virginia and Virginia [long sections of Corridor H in West Virginia are complete and open to traffic, none of it in Frederick County, Va. and Shenandoah County, Va. has been planned or engineered].”

      was not aware of that history.. I assume he openly admitted and was fired for cause? eh…..
      http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19950419&id=rloxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oaIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1061,2084113

      “They may not even make it past the local metropolitan planning organization’s financially constrained long range plan.”

      if they are not in the CLRP – they are bogus lines on a map. Recent GA law requires VDOT to review local Comp Plans for consistency with VDOT SYIP.

      “That is pretty well standard operating procedure not just in Virginia.”

      yup

      “But ultimately, the Corps can decline to issue that Section 404 (of the Clean Water Act) permit, and without that, chicken or not, a project is not going to be built.”

      VDOT believes if they can make ACE the only thing holding the road back that political pressure can be brought to bear – like happened with EPA in WVA.

      “They are in Maryland as well – though the same EPA Region 3 staff tried (and failed) to get the master-planned routing of the InterCounty Connector removed from consideration during the 1990′s EIS process.”

      EPA has a weaker voice unless it is relying on a specific law… that protects a resources – like a reservoir, etc.

      “Again, I don’t believe that VDOT can force the federal agencies to issue permits needed for a project.”

      not explicity – but implicitly – through political process.. if state and national legislators get involved – they can make things tougher…

      It’s VDOT’s tendency to believe they can prevail – politically – rather than negotiate and compromise with resource agencies that is the problem – that leads to failures like the Outer Connector in Fredericksburg, the Cville bypass , western transportation corridor and now US 460.

      that’s a lot of worthless wheel spinning…

  13. cpzilliacus Avatar
    cpzilliacus

    The best thing to be found online these days about the 1995 firing of Peter Kostmayer as EPA Region III Administrator is an article that ran in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Money quotes:

    It was, however, two projects in West Virginia that Kostmayer aides suspect led to his dismissal.

    Kostmayer opposed “Appalachian Corridor H,” a proposed four-lane highway through one of the largest forests in Region III.

    Byrd wrote to EPA’s Browner, complaining that Kostmayer had “prejudged” the project. Rockefeller also wrote to the agency in support of the $1 billion highway.

    VDOT believes if they can make ACE the only thing holding the road back that political pressure can be brought to bear – like happened with EPA in WVA.

    Do you mean EPA as in what happened to Kostmayer?

    EPA has a weaker voice unless it is relying on a specific law… that protects a resources – like a reservoir, etc.

    Funny that you mention reservoirs. EPA Region III was one of the key promoters of the so-called “Northern”Alignment of Md. 200 (ICC), which would have put the six-lane toll road (and at least one big interchange, with U.S. 29) in the watershed of the Patuxent River, which is a major source of drinking water for the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.

    not explicity – but implicitly – through political process.. if state and national legislators get involved – they can make things tougher…

    See above.

    It’s VDOT’s tendency to believe they can prevail – politically – rather than negotiate and compromise with resource agencies that is the problem – that leads to failures like the Outer Connector in Fredericksburg, the Cville bypass , western transportation corridor and now US 460.

    The Charlottesville Bypass is a project that I have some understanding of. If I recall correctly, it got litigated up to (and including) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and the Federal Highway Administration (and VDOT) prevailed, though the project has never been built due to a lack of funding. Scott Kozel’s Web site discusses it here in some detail.

    1. “The best thing to be found online these days about the 1995 firing of Peter Kostmayer as EPA Region III Administrator is an article that ran in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Money quotes:

      It was, however, two projects in West Virginia that Kostmayer aides suspect led to his dismissal.

      Kostmayer opposed “Appalachian Corridor H,” a proposed four-lane highway through one of the largest forests in Region III.

      Byrd wrote to EPA’s Browner, complaining that Kostmayer had “prejudged” the project. Rockefeller also wrote to the agency in support of the $1 billion highway.”

      in other words – politics.

      “VDOT believes if they can make ACE the only thing holding the road back that political pressure can be brought to bear – like happened with EPA in WVA.

      Do you mean EPA as in what happened to Kostmayer?

      EPA has a weaker voice unless it is relying on a specific law… that protects a resources – like a reservoir, etc.

      Funny that you mention reservoirs. EPA Region III was one of the key promoters of the so-called “Northern”Alignment of Md. 200 (ICC), which would have put the six-lane toll road (and at least one big interchange, with U.S. 29) in the watershed of the Patuxent River, which is a major source of drinking water for the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.”

      water supply reservoirs whether in NoVa or Charlottesville are issue with new roads. One over-turned tanker truck can destroy a water source.

      “not explicity – but implicitly – through political process.. if state and national legislators get involved – they can make things tougher…

      See above.”

      the proponents of a road, including usually the DOT, will seek to neuter the Federal agencies that oppose it.. pro forma

      “It’s VDOT’s tendency to believe they can prevail – politically – rather than negotiate and compromise with resource agencies that is the problem – that leads to failures like the Outer Connector in Fredericksburg, the Cville bypass , western transportation corridor and now US 460.

      The Charlottesville Bypass is a project that I have some understanding of. If I recall correctly, it got litigated up to (and including) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and the Federal Highway Administration (and VDOT) prevailed, though the project has never been built due to a lack of funding. Scott Kozel’s Web site discusses it here in some detail.”

      well..until 18-24 months ago when VDOT said they had the money.

      Kozel is/was a VDOT employee and an advocate of VDOT and their way of doing business and an opponent of NEPA and most environmental issues.

      he fundamentally believes in the worth of all roads (as do I ..) but I think VDOT corrupts the process in the way they try to prevail on road issues and ultimately it damages their reputation and undermines trust in the agency – far more important issues than one road… people simply do not trust VDOT to provide honest data and conduct a trustworthy process.

      I’m a critic of the way VDOT does new location roads but I am an unabashed admirer of much of the rest of VDOT… I think with the exception of the new location road folks – VDOT does good work.

Leave a Reply