DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Environmental Compliance for Projects Utilizing Alternative Funding Models

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Environmental Compliance for Projects Utilizing Alternative Funding Models Federal Environmental Compliance for Projects Utilizing Alternative Funding Models Requested by: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on the Environment Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10119 October 2013 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 81, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. SPECIAL NOTE: This report IS NOT an official publication of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, or The National Academies. NCHRP 25-25, Task 81– Federal Environmental Compliance for Projects Utilizing Alternative Funding Models Acknowledgements This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 25-25 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment. The report was prepared by Benjamin Perez, AICP, Reno Giordano, and Jennifer Thompson of Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. The work was guided by a task group chaired by Dr. Gail D’Avino, which also included Alfedo Acoff, Craig Casper, Thomas Reeves, Dennis Houlihan, Mark Muriello, Jackie Plock, Mark Kross, Kevin Walsh, David McCray and Neel Vanikar. The project was managed by Nanda Srinivasan, NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This document is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council. October 2013 NCHRP 25-25, Task 81– Federal Environmental Compliance for Projects Utilizing Alternative Funding Models Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Summary and Research Objectives .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Projects Studied .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Organization of the Final Report ............................................................................................................... 1-4 2 CONTEXTUAL UNDERSTANDING .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Alternative Funding Models ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Alternative Procurement Models ................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3 The NEPA Process ........................................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.4 NEPA and the Timing of P3 Procurements.............................................................................................. 2-10 2.5 NEPA Provisions in Federal Transportation Law ................................................................................... 2-11 2.6 Other Federal Environmental Laws ......................................................................................................... 2-14 2.7 Local Regulatory Processes and Complementary Real Estate Development .................................. 2-17 3 PROJECT PROFILES.................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction and Approach .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 I-595 Corridor Roadway Improvements Project Profile .................................................................................................... 3-3 Port of Miami Tunnel Project Profile .................................................................................................................................... 3-11 Mid-Currituck Bridge Project Profile ................................................................................................................................... 3-19 North Tarrant Express I-35W Segments 3A and 3B Project Profile ............................................................................ 3-27 South Norfolk Jordan Bridge Project Profile ..................................................................................................................... 3-37 Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/MLK Extension Project Profile ............................................................................... 3-45 Transbay Transit Center Project Profile .............................................................................................................................. 3-55 Denver Union Station Project Profile ................................................................................................................................... 3-65 Miami Intermodal Center Project Profile ............................................................................................................................ 3-75 Interlink Project Profile ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-83 4 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 NEPA Compliance for Highway Projects with Early Private Involvement ........................................... 4-1 4.2 NEPA Compliance for Highway Projects with Post-NEPA Private Involvement.................................. 4-2 4.3 NEPA Compliance for Transit Center and Real Estate Projects with Early Private Involvement...................................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.4 NEPA Compliance for Transit Center and Real Estate Projects with Post-NEPA Private Involvement...................................................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.5 Lessons Learned: Highway Project Utilizing Alternative Funding Models ........................................... 4-9 4.6 Lessons Learned: Multimodal Transit Centers and Real Estate Development Projects Utilizing Alternative Funding Models ...................................................................................................... 4-11 4.7 Many Templates for Success ..................................................................................................................... 4-14 Tables TABLE 1-1: ESSENTIAL CASE STUDY PROJECT INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 1-5 TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT PROFILE FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 4-3 October 2013 Page | i NCHRP 25-25, Task 81– Federal Environmental Compliance for Projects Utilizing Alternative Funding Models List of Acronyms AASHTO ......... American Association of State DWQ ............... Division of Water Quality Highway and Transportation EA ..................... Environmental Assessment Officials EOC ................. Executive Oversight Committee ACHP ............... Advisory Council on Historic EPA .................. U.S. Environmental Protection Preservation Agency AWI ................. Atlantic Wood Industries EIS .................... Environmental Impact Statement BCEPD ............. Broward County Environmental ERC .................. Elizabeth River Crossings, LLC Protection Department FAA .................. Federal Aviation Administration BOO ................ Build-Own-Operate FDEP ................ Florida Department of BOT .................. Build-Operate-Transfer Environmental Protection BRT ................... Bus Rapid Transit FEIS .................. Final Environmental Impact CAMA .............. Coastal Area Management Act Statement CCD ................. City and County of Denver FHWA ............. Federal Highway Administration CCSF ................ City and County of San Francisco FDOT ............... Florida Department of CDC ................. Corridor Design Consultant Transportation CDOT .............. Colorado Department of FONSI .............. Finding of No Significant Impact Transportation FRA .................. Federal Railroad Administration CDPHE ............. Colorado Department of Public FTA ................... Federal Transit Administration Health and Environment FTE.................... Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise CE ..................... Categorical Exclusion HOV ................ High Occupancy Vehicles CEI .................... Construction Engineering and LOI ................... Letter of Intent Inspection LPA ................... Locally Preferred Alternative CEQ ................. Council on Environmental Quality MAP-21 .......... Moving Ahead for Progress in the CFR .................. Code of Federal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Traffic Advisory for IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Carley Brierre (757) 793-0337 [email protected] September 11, 2020
    Traffic Advisory FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Carley Brierre (757) 793-0337 [email protected] September 11, 2020 DriveERT LANE CLOSURE SCHEDULE From Friday, September 11 to Friday, September 18 Below is a list of significant tunnel/lane closures for the Elizabeth River Crossings (ERC) facilities. All work is dependent upon weather conditions and closure dates are subject to change. For updates, follow us on Twitter @DriveERT. US 58 East Midtown Tunnel: Alternating lane closures in the Midtown Tunnel eastbound on Sunday, September 13 from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. US 58 West Midtown Tunnel: Alternating lane closures in the Midtown Tunnel westbound on Sunday, September 13 from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. US 58 East Midtown Tunnel: Alternating lane closures in the Midtown Tunnel eastbound on Monday, September 14 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. US 58 West Midtown Tunnel: Alternating lane closures in the Midtown Tunnel westbound on Monday, September 14 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. I-264 East Downtown Tunnel: Alternating lane closures in the Downtown Tunnel eastbound on Sunday, September 13 from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. I-264 West Downtown Tunnel: Alternating lane closures in the Downtown Tunnel westbound on Sunday, September 13 from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. I-264 East Downtown Tunnel: Left lane closure in the Downtown Tunnel eastbound on Monday, September 14; Tuesday, September 15; Wednesday, September 16 and Thursday, September 17 from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. the following morning. I-264 East Downtown Tunnel: Full tunnel closure in the Downtown Tunnel eastbound on Friday, September 18 from 9 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • 130954 Opinion by Justice Leroy F
    Present: Kinser, C.J., Millette, Mims, McClanahan, and Powell, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ. ELIZABETH RIVER CROSSINGS OPCO, LLC v. Record No. 130954 OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. DANNY MEEKS, ET AL. October 31, 2013 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. Record No. 130955 DANNY MEEKS, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH James A. Cales, Jr., Judge Designate In this appeal we hold that the General Assembly did not unconstitutionally delegate its power of taxation to the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and Elizabeth River Crossings OpCo, LLC ("ERC") under the terms of the Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995, Code § 56-556 et seq. ("PPTA"), and that the Comprehensive Agreement between VDOT and ERC does not abridge the Commonwealth's police power. I. Facts and Proceedings A. History of Tunnels Crossing the Elizabeth River A branch of the Elizabeth River separates the City of Portsmouth from the City of Norfolk. The first tunnel crossing the Elizabeth River between Portsmouth and Norfolk was the two- lane Downtown Tunnel, which opened in 1952. The Downtown Tunnel experienced "steadily increasing traffic . at levels substantially higher than those originally projected." In response, the General Assembly authorized the construction of an additional crossing in 1956. The Midtown Tunnel was subsequently built a short distance northwest of the Downtown Tunnel and was opened in 1962. By 1973, the General Assembly was made aware that traffic through the Downtown Tunnel had reached capacity, with substantial congestion being commonplace and likely to get worse. Further, the Midtown Tunnel was projected to reach capacity within a few years.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Effects of Newly Imposed Tolls on Heavily Traveled Tunnel
    Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy 49(1): 78{91 A Tale of Two Tunnels: Economic Effects of Newly Imposed Tolls on Heavily Traveled Tunnel Venues in Virginia James V. Koch Old Dominion University Ziniya Zahedi Old Dominion University Received: 11/15/2018 Accepted: 01/22/2019 Abstract Many studies have examined the reaction of drivers either to the opening of new roads, bridges and tunnels that assess tolls upon those who use them, or to driver reactions when existing tolls are increased. This study examines a much less common situation|the imposition of tolls on two existing, heavily traveled tunnel venues. Ordinarily, driver demand is price inelastic in tolled situations, but not so here. Initial driver reactions to the new tolls were strongly negative, though this response did dissipate somewhat over time. Critical issues here include the availability of viable substitute free travel venues; the amount of time lost by drivers when the substitutes are used; and, the disparate impact of the new tolls upon the cities adjacent to the tolled tunnels. These results may discipline policy-makers and investors who regard tolls as enticing solutions to their problems. 1 Introduction Once tolls have been established on roads, bridges and tunnels, increases in those tolls are a regular occur- rence. What happens, however, when a government decides to place tolls on vehicles that traverse heavily used, but previously free highway venues? This is an unusual circumstance in the United States. The tolling situation examined in this paper focuses on the Commonwealth of Virginia, which via a 58-year public-private partnership with the Elizabeth River Company, expanded and improved two existing tunnels that carry traffic between the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth in the 1.75 million-person Hampton Roads1 area in Southeast Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • South Norfolk Jordan Bridge (“SNJB”) Is a 5,372 Ft Fixed Bridge That Connects the City of Chesapeake to the City of Portsmouth Over the Elizabeth River In
    TOLL REVENUE NEW BUILD / REPLACEMENT SOUTH NORFOLK PRIVATIZATION PRIVATE FINANCING UNSOLICITED BID JORDAN BRIDGE CHESAPEAKE, VA The South Norfolk Jordan Bridge (“SNJB”) is a 5,372 ft fixed bridge that connects the City of Chesapeake to the City of Portsmouth over the Elizabeth River in Virginia. The City of Chesapeake had decommissioned the original Jordan Bridge in November 2008. An unsolicited proposal submitted by United Bridge Partners (“UBP”) to replace the Jordan Bridge with a new, privately owned bridge was approved by the City of Chesapeake in January 20091 by executing an Acquisition and Development Agreement (“ADA”) between UBP and the City of Chesapeake. As part of the ADA, UBP assumed responsibility to demolish the existing Jordan Bridge, aquired the right of way and easments associated with the bridge, and the right to toll, design, construct, finance, operate and assume ownership of a new bridge and associated tolling facilities on the SNJB. The construction of the SNJB was reported to be privately financed. Project revenue on the SNJB comes from tolls, set by the private operator with no defined limit, which are collected electronically on the bridge2. Note: the facts of this case study were reviewed by UBP. We have provided Chesapeake footnotes to describe instances where UBP disputes information in the public domain. BACKGROUND + PROJECT DRIVERS The Elizabeth River Corridor between Midtown Tunnel and High Rise Bridge in southern eastern Virginia near the Chesapeake Bay serves approximately 250,000 Figure 1: Elizabeth River Crossings. vehicle trip crossings per weekday. It is a growing corridor that primarily serves Source: Pickard, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/MLK Extension Project Presented To: HRTPO Board, January 19, 2012
    Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/MLK Extension Project Presented to: HRTPO Board, January 19, 2012 Presented by: Frank Fabian, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Virginia Department of Transportation 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2 Project Overview New, parallel two-lane tunnel Brambleton Avenue Hampton Boulevard interchange Refurbishment and modifications safety improvements Extending MLK to I-264, High St interchange Refurbishment and safety improvements 3 The Midtown Team Owner – Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Stakeholders – Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk Virginia Port Authority Businesses and Citizens of the Commonwealth Consultant – Southeastern Transportation Partners (STP) JV: Parsons Transportation Group (PTG) and Rummel, Klepper & Kahl (RK&K) Subs: Athavale Lystad & Assoc. Business Transf Group Capita Symonds Continental Field Services, GET Solutions GZA Geo Env HBA Arch Keville Ent Kimley-Horn MBP NXL Seventh Point 4 The Midtown Team Developer – Elizabeth River Crossings (ERC) • JV of Skanska ID and Macquarie Capital Design/Builder – a JV between: • Skanska SE (45%) • Kiewit (40%) • Weeks (15%) Design Team – Parsons Brinckerhoff (Tunnel) Volkert (MLK Civil/Structural) Schnabel (MLK Geotech) PMI (Survey) • Seven Subconsultants 5 Value Beyond Traffic Improvements Direct Promotes Local Job Economic Economic Creation Stimulus Development Over $1 billion in $170 to $254 million Over 500 construction works increase in regional construction jobs 1 Built by local productivity directly created companies
    [Show full text]
  • New Capacity, Improved Safety Crossings
    elizabeth river New Capacity, Improved Safety crossings The new Midtown Tunnel will be built adjacent to the existing Employment & Midtown Tunnel—bi-directional traffic in the existing Midtown Tunnel will be converted to one-way. Subcontracting The Project will create hundreds of jobs, plus promote regional economic development. The active involvement of local, disadvantaged, minority and women-owned businesses will strongly contribute to the Project’s success. In cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Virginia Employment Commission and Improving Connectivity in Hampton Roads the Business Opportunity and Workforce Development Program, ERC will continue Located in Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia, the Project to share information about potential includes: work areas, and subcontracting and • A new two-lane tunnel under the Elizabeth River employment opportunities. adjacent to the existing Midtown Tunnel. Interested subcontractors should submit Reflecting the input provided by local police, fire, ambulance and first responders, • Significant rehabilitation, safety improvements and the following information to the design will enable enhanced emergency response and evacuation readiness. maintenance to the existing Midtown and Downtown [email protected]: State-of-the-art safety features in the new tunnel include a separate escape corridor, Tunnels, which are 50-, 60- and 25-years-old. jet fans, deluge system, fire sensors, fire alarms/extinguishers/hose connections, 1. Contact information for your • Interchange improvements at Brambleton Avenue/ motorist aid phones, fireproofing and video monitoring for traveler safety. company (individual name, Hampton Boulevard in Norfolk to enhance traffic flow. company name, address, phone, fax and email) • Extending the MLK Freeway from London Boulevard to Interstate 264, with a partial interchange at High 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia—Midtown Tunnel Case Study
    Public Works Financing newsletter Published monthly since January 1988 by William G. Reinhardt, Editor/Publisher Peterborough, NH www.PWFinance.net [email protected] Reprinted From January 2017 Case Study Virginia: Overview of the Elizabeth River Tunnels Project By Chris Guthkelch, Project Director at Skanska Infrastructure Development Americas The Midtown Tunnel is one of four elements of the Elizabeth River Tunnels Project. In this element, a new 3,800-foot long, two-lane tunnel was constructed, adjacent to the existing Midtown Tunnel, which connects Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. Other elements include a one-mile extension of the Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway — an elevated four-lane, north-south expressway with a raised median connecting State Route 164 to Interstate 264 and includes a new interchange with I-264; upgrading the two Downtown Tunnels and renovating the existing Midtown Tunnel, in part to reconfigure it to two-lane traffic in one direction. The second lane of the Midtown Tunnel was open in August 2016, six months ahead of schedule. The entire project is slated to be completed in October 2017. Skanska Project Director, Chris Guthkelch, who led the Elizabeth River Tunnels Project bid team, agreed to provide an overview here of Skanska’s first P3 project in the U.S. What were the Technical challenges? “Preparing the river for the installation of the tunnel. Trenches were excavated on land and at the bottom of the river, removing existing abandoned timber piles and shoreline debris on land, and 1.5 million cubic yards of sediment in the water. The excavation created a bed for the tunnel that was precisely leveled to an elevation of plus or minus 1 inch, 95-feet underwater from a floating vessel.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Press Release
    Emergency Managers, Transportation Officials Build Resiliency through Tunnel Engagement Release Date: August 31, 2018 PHILADELPHIA – All tunnels and bridges lead somewhere. In Southeastern Virginia’s Hampton Roads area they serve as critical routes for commuters, vacationers, and in case of emergencies like a hurricane, potential evacuation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (CBBT) joined together August 30 - 31, 2018 to tour Hampton Roads’ major tunnels and discuss their importance for emergency response. This opportunity allowed emergency managers and transportation officials to discuss resilience actions in place, begin a dialogue for what may be needed in the event of a hurricane or flooding, develop courses of action for potential support to the tunnels, and fully understand potential impacts on emergency preparation and response activities. Tunnel and bridge operators in Virginia have taken multiple steps to ensure the infrastructure is secure and resilient to potential incidents. VDOT owns four tunnels in the region – the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel (I-664), the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (I-64); the Downtown Tunnel (I-264), and the Midtown Tunnel (Rt. 58), the latter two of which are operated by Elizabeth River Crossings for VDOT. The visit to these tunnels included meetings between VDOT, Elizabeth River Crossings, DOT, FEMA, and VDEM officials to discuss their operations and actions in place to ensure these vital elements are resilient. “Transportation around Hampton Roads relies on the successful operation of these tunnels,” said Chris Hall, VDOT District Engineer and Administrator for Hampton Roads.
    [Show full text]
  • Elizabeth River Crossings Opco
    Today’s Technology at the Midtown Tunnel David Boss, P.E. Skanska Infrastructure Development Overview The Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/MLK Extension project required that Toll Collection, ITS and SCADA systems be implemented on three existing tunnels, one new tunnel tube, one new section of tolled highway and extend into the surrounding highway network Considering the existing congestion at the tunnels, this crucial $2.1 billion project would literally not have been possible without All Electronic Tolling (AET) New systems were designed from scratch incorporating today’s technology while making accommodation for tomorrow’s advancements Modern toll systems enable the seamless flow of data into management and accounting systems Agenda: 1. Project Overview 2. Heavy Civil & Marine Technology 3. Toll Collection 4. ITS 5. SCADA 2 1 Project Background 3 Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia 4 Public-Private Partnership VDOT procured the project under Virginia’s PPTA statute in 2008 Elizabeth River Crossings (50% Macquaire, 50% Skanska Infrastructure Development) was the only respondent —Design-Build Joint Venture of Skanska-Kiewit-Weeks Marine Comprehensive Agreement signed in December 2011 Tolling authorized under FHWA Value Pricing Pilot Program Term of contract is 58 years Risk transfer of design, construction, finance, operations and maintenance Financing includes over $300M contribution from Virginia, $422M TIFIA Loan, $675M in PABs and the rest is sponsor’s equity investment Tolling delayed until January 2014 5 Contractual Structure Tolling Contractor Direct Agreement (Lenders’ Step-in Arrangements) Comprehensive Agreement Concessionaire Loan Agreement e Tolling Contract Financiers Design-Build Contract *Interface (includes ITS and SCADA) Agreement *Interface Agreement governs coordination and cooperation of contractors when working together on the same site.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Studies Contrasting the Canadian and US Approaches
    Transportation P3s – Case Studies contrasting the Canadian and U.S. Approaches NUTC Spring Industry Workshop May 2017 Why Governments Use P3 for Infrastructure RISK TRANSFER EXPERTISE Reallocate risks to the private sector Access to top international firms Revenue/Rates New technologies Construction Operational best practices Technology Operations/Maintenance Drive value with lifecycle costing Lifecycle/Capital Reinvestment ‘Pre-paid’ O&M and Lifecycle RESOURCES TIME Minimize use of scarce public resources Accelerate delivery of high priority projects Personnel Streamlined development process Monetary Fast-tracked financing using private sector experience Access private sector capital to reduce/delay public and capital resources sector outlays Government can present that projects are moving Debt and equity forward and completed Cost certainty Projects return to the Public Sector 1 Infrastructure Procurement Alternatives ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION GOVERNMENT RETAINED RISKS 0% Traditional Procurement Some price mitigation from fixed price contracts low Designer/Architect is agent of the government Significant interface risk between contractor and designer/architect Design – Bid – Build Significant skill required to manage cost over- runs/change orders Key criteria is low construction price and not whole life costing Government contracts for the design and Construction (mitigated through time-certain, fixed- construction of assets directly price contract) Design – Build Contractor Coordinates Financing, operations,
    [Show full text]
  • HAMPTON ROADS CLOSURES on WATER CROSSINGS, INTERSTATES and OTHER NOTABLE DETOURS for the Week of June 28 to July 4
    RELEASE: IMMEDIATE June 26, 2020 CONTACT: Media Line: 757-956-3032 [email protected] HAMPTON ROADS CLOSURES ON WATER CROSSINGS, INTERSTATES AND OTHER NOTABLE DETOURS For the week of June 28 to July 4 NOTE: This list covers full closures of interstates, ramps, bridges and primary roads, and lane closures at the bridge-tunnels and the Berkley, Coleman, High Rise and James River bridges. *Scheduled closures are subject to change based on weather conditions and other factors.* ​For information on the many other lane closures necessary for maintenance and construction throughout Hampton Roads, visit 511Virginia.org, download the 511VA smartphone app, or dial 511. Bridges & Tunnels: Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, I-64: Alternating, single-lane closures westbound from June 29 to July 1 from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. HRBT Expansion Project: For lane closures and project updates related to the HRBT Expansion Project, visit HRBTExpansion.org. Berkley Bridge, I-264: Alternating, mobile, single-lane closures in both directions on June 30 from 9:30 a.m. to noon. I-64 Widening Segment III Project, York County: Single-lane closures on I-64 east and west from Route 199 Lightfoot exit (exit 234) to Route 199/Humelsine Parkway (exit 242) June 28-July 2, starting as early as 7 p.m. to 5 a.m. A consecutive, long-term lane closure under traffic signal control on Colonial Parkway at the I-64 overpass continues. A consecutive, long-term full ramp closure on Route 143 Merrimac Trail north to I-64 west continues. Traffic will follow detour signage in place directing motorists to the Route 143 south on-ramp to I-64 west during the closure.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/ MLK Extension Project
    Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/ MLK Extension Project Project Management Plan For Design, Construction, and Operations Submitted to Federal Highway Administration Submitted by Virginia Department of Transportation June 2009 Updated March 2011 Contents Amendment Record Table This Project Management Plan has been issued and amended as follows: Issue Rev Description Date Signed 1 0 Original Issue June 2009 1 1 Document edited to include March, 2011 preliminary engineering activities and project design and construction activities (Design/Build Phase) and to responsd to FHWA Janaur 2011 comments to December 2010 draft update. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE: PURPOSE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 1.1 Background/Development of Project ------------------------------------------------------------ 9 1.2 Project Scope ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 1.2.1 The Midtown Tunnel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 1.2.2 The MLK Extension -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 1.2.3 The Downtown Tunnel ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 1.3 Project Phases -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 1.4 PPTA Process/Private Entities Involvement
    [Show full text]