ITEM #9: I-64/HIGH RISE BRIDGE CORRIDOR STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: VDOT In March 2013, the HRTPO 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan was amended to include an environmental study for the improvement of the Interstate 64 (I-64) corridor from I-464 to I- 264/I-664 at Bowers Hill, including the High Rise Bridge. VDOT, in cooperation with the Federal itHighway was made Administration available for (FHWA) public review and the and U.S. comment Coast Guard, completed the Draft Environmental publicAssessment hearing (EA) for for the the project Interstate was held 64/High on November Rise Bridge 6, 2014. Corridor Study on October 6, 2014 and through November 21, 2014. A location the results of which analyzed potential environmental impacts associatedAt the November with any2014 alternatives HRTPO Board developed meeting, toVDOT address provided transportation a presentation capacity on needs and improvethe Draft roadway Environmental and bridge Assessment conditions (EA), throughout the corridor. - and two fixed-bridge options (95 feet and 135 feet): The draft EA includes the following No Build and Mainline Candidate Build Alternatives (CBAs) 1. No- 2. - – No Toll 3. Build- Alternative – High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) 4. CBA1 - Eight Lane Build Alternative – High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) 5. CBA2 - Eight Lane Build Managed Alternative – CBA2 Eight Lane Build Managed Alternative CBA2 Eight Lane Build Managed Alternative All Tolled accessedA VDOT brochure on the VDOT on the website study and at: a http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/itable summarizing the Level of Service (LOS) of the various-64_- _high_rise_bridge_corridor_study.aspalternatives are attached. In addition,. the Draft EA and associated technical documents may be The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has expressed an interest in knowing the p Transportation Technical dvisory Creferred alternative members and bridge were heightrequested option to reviewselected the by available the HRTPO materials, and HRTACcoordinate prior with to theirmaking respective its decision HRTPO on those Board issues members, in April and 2015. make HRTPO a recommendation regarding a preferredA alternativeommittee (TTAC)and bridge height option. t recommended – , with a 95 foot bridge recommendation regarding HOV, HOT, orAt ttheolling March. 4, 2015 meeting, he TTAC CBA2 Eight Lane Build Managed Alternative height. The TTAC made no ect Manager, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item. Mr. Scott Smizik, VDOT Location Studies Proj AAttachment Resolution 9 for approval is included with Meeting Agenda Item #14. March 19, 2015 HRTPO Board Meeting │ │ Agenda Location Public Hearing Interstate 64 / High Rise Bridge Corridor Study Thursday, November 6, 2014 Tidewater Community College 120 Campus Drive www.VirginiaDOT.org Portsmouth, VA 23701 4:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Welcome As part of the Interstate 64 / High Rise Bridge Corridor The purpose of this hearing is to provide a public Study, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), opportunity for any person, acting on his/her own behalf in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration or representing a group or governing body, to offer (FHWA) as the lead federal agency, and the United States comments or submit written material concerning the Coast Guard as a cooperating agency, have evaluated proposed alternatives. We invite you to review the findings alternatives to improve transportation conditions along of the study and discuss the project with VDOT the Interstate 64 (I-64) corridor between the Interstate 464 representatives who are here to answer your questions. (I-464) interchange and the Interstate 664 (I-664) and To view the meeting materials, comment online, or for Interstate 264 (I-264) interchanges at Bowers Hill in the future updates, please visit the study website at: City of Chesapeake, Virginia. Pursuant to the National www.64highrise.org Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA) and in accordance with FHWA regulations, an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze the potential social, economic, and environmental effects associated with the retained alternatives. Project Overview Purpose – Based on the existing and future transportation conditions, the purpose of the study is to develop alternatives to address transportation capacity and improve roadway and bridge conditions throughout the corridor. To meet this purpose, the following needs are being considered: • Improve capacity; • Enhance corridor safety; • Address the High Rise Bridge improvements; and, • Improve the ability of the corridor to function as a key emergency evacuation route. From: I-64/I-464 interchange To: I-64/I-264 interchange at Bowers Hill Total length: Approximately 8 miles State Project – 0064-131-783; UPC: 104366 Attachment 9 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study The alternatives retained for detailed analysis in the EA foot bridge to $2.30 billion for the 135 foot bridge. The include a No Build Alternative and two mainline build increased cost compared to the Eight Lane Build Alternative alternatives with two fixed bridge options. is based on the additional pavement necessary to separate No Build Alternative the managed and general purpose lanes. In accordance with the regulations implementing NEPA, the No Build Alternative has been retained for evaluation in the There have been no specific operational scenarios identified EA to serve as a benchmark for the comparison of future at this stage of the study. Accordingly, the following three conditions and impacts. The No Build Alternative would operational scenarios were developed to establish a sample retain the existing I-64 interstate, associated interchanges, range of travel demand conditions: High Occupancy Vehicle and the High Rise Bridge in their present configurations (HOV), High Occupancy Toll (HOT) and All Tolled. and allow for routine maintenance and safety upgrades. For the purpose of this study, potential impacts associated with the Eight Lane Build - Managed Alternative assume Eight Lane Build Alternative the same footprint as the Eight Lane Build Alternative. The The Eight Lane Build Alternative would include HOV and All Tolled lane scenarios would fit within the area construction of four additional lanes of capacity (two lanes of impact. If a specific managed lane scenario is identified in each direction) on I-64 within the study limits. Wherever as the Preferred Alternative, impact estimates could be possible, the additional lanes would be constructed towards updated in the Revised EA and associated technical reports. the existing median. The widening of I-64 to eight lanes also would require the reconstruction of ramps, bridges Bridge Options interchanges, and culverts along the retained alternative Two fixed-span bridge options, measuring 95 feet and corridor. Preliminary costs range from $1.86 billion for the 135 feet at mean high water, are under consideration. 95-foot bridge to $2.22 billion for the 135 foot bridge. Both options would include two new bridges, one built on existing alignment and one built south of the existing Eight Lane Build – Managed Alternative bridge alignment. These options include consideration of The Eight Lane Build – Managed Alternative would be widening the horizontal clearance from 125 feet to 135 similar to the Eight Lane Build Alternative; however, some feet. The Eight Lane Build Alternative planning level bridge I 64/High Rise orBridg eall of the travel lanes would be managed using tolls and/ cost is $405 million for the 95 foot bridgeState Projec tand Number: 00$63564-131-783, million P101; UPC: 104 366 Corridor Study Area* Federal Project Number: NH-IM-064-3(481) Water Bodiesor vehicle occupancy. Additionally, expandedFigure local/express 1 Study Areafor the 135 foot bridge. The Eight Lane Build - Managed N Great Dismal Swamp bus service or bus rapid transit couldInterstate be accommodated 64/High Rise Bridge AlternativeCorridor Stud yplanning level bridge cost is $425 million for the Environmental Assessment *The study area is a buffer around the road corridor that includes all natural, cultural and physical resources that must be analyzed in the NEPA documenwitht. It does no thist imply righ t-of-wayalternative take or construction impact. in the general purpose or the managed 95 foot bridge and $670 million for the 135 foot bridge. City of Chesapeake Miles Mapping Source: VDOT and Citylanes. of Chesapeake Preliminary costs range from $1.92 billion for the 95 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Study Area D V L ) B E h N LI c IR A n a ¨¦§264 r ¤£558 B rn ¤£46460 J e O h L t L u IF o F R S D ( D r V e L 464 B v i ¨¦§ Bowers Hill ¤£117 E G R D I R Interchange h B t N I e D A V b B L Y B a Y 664 W z W § R i H ¨¦ H l Y E I N C E AR L O A T $ A T N ILI A V M $ G L A S IN D C H R ¤£46046 $ $ S A $ W ¤£113 $ E D $ $ G R R S $ $ D M O I $ E £131 A L ¤ I $ T G E AR $ T Y S $ HW E Y $ ILITARY HWY £46460 S M ¤ M O ¤£113 H ¤£113 «¬16166 ¤£46460 $ $ B A G I N R E B A R T $ B $ ID R ID G G E E $ B B $ $ L I-64 E (Westbound travel direction) L V $ V D $ $ D $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ High Rise Bridge $ $ $ $ $ G $ 64 $ $ A $ ¨¦§ $ $ L B E $ R I-64 W (Eastbound travel direction) R Y R D «¬10410 O «168 L D ¤£117 I-64/High Rise Bridge Hampton M James River Chesapeake I D N L ¤£60 V Bay L Corridor StudyL Area* Newport R *The64 study area is a buffer around the road corridor that includes all natural, B 17 News ¨¦§ ¤£ D N Great Dismal IO IN Water BodiesM cultural and physical resourcesSwamp that must be analyzed in the NEPA document. It O D ¤£258 ¨¦§664 Isle of Wight Great Dismal Swamp does not¤£460 imply right-of-way take or construction impact.