{"id":1503,"date":"2020-12-01T02:27:34","date_gmt":"2020-12-01T07:27:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.activepw.org\/?p=1503"},"modified":"2020-12-02T21:39:51","modified_gmt":"2020-12-03T02:39:51","slug":"the-route-28-manassas-bypass-is-not-the-lowest-cost-or-the-least-environmentally-damaging-practicable-alternative-ledpa-for-the-route-28-corridor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.activepw.org\/?p=1503","title":{"rendered":"The Route 28 Manassas Bypass Is Not the Lowest Cost Or the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the Route 28 Corridor"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

The Alignments of the Four Route 28 Corridor Expansion Alternatives Compared Below<\/p><\/div>\n

Active Prince William board member Mark Scheufler sent the following comparison of Route 28 corridor alternatives to the Prince William Board of County Supervisors on November 30, 2020.<\/p>\n

\n

Dear Prince William Board of County Supervisors:<\/p>\n

In advance of the December 7th\u00a0<\/sup> virtual public meeting on Route 28<\/a>, it is timely to correct misinformation about the alternatives to Alignment 2B. The costs of Alternative 4 (Widening Route 28) were overstated by calculating the impacts\/costs of widening Route 28 between Blooms Quarry Lane and Liberia Ave that is already six lanes.<\/p>\n

Realistic cost estimates are needed not only by the supervisors in Prince William and Fairfax counties, but also by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.\u00a0 Those two agencies may determine that cost differences between Alignment 2B and other alternatives are not sufficient to justify the greater environmental damage.<\/p>\n

As the Meeting Minutes at the January 16, 2020\u00a0Project Update and Alternatives Development Technical Memo Review\u00a0<\/a> state (on pages 2 and 3):<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cStuart ended with a presentation of the cost summary for the alternatives, which showed that Alternative 4 would be almost $100 million more than Alternatives 2A and 2B.\u00a0MacKenzie indicated that cost would not be a factor that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would consider in their evaluation<\/u><\/em><\/strong>. Rick responded that he understood, but emphasized the need to consider purpose and need in the comparison of the alternatives.<\/p>\n

Subsequent to the meeting, Hannah Schul, DEQ, clarified that DEQ makes permitting decisions based on the\u00a0Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA<\/u><\/em><\/strong>). Per the Clean Water Act, a permit cannot be issued if a practicable alternative exists that would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.\u00a0The LEDPA does take cost into consideration, but an alternative would only be potentially eliminated if costs are clearly exorbitant compared to similar alternatives.\u201d<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The analysis summarized in the table below [the complete ROW analysis is here<\/a>] shows the cost of alternatives along or near existing Route 28 are not exorbitant compared to Alternative 2B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Alternative 4 includes $37M in ROW impacts along a 1.1-mile section of Route 28 that is already six lanes and should require minimal improvement and no ROW impacts (Blooms Quarry Lane to Liberia Ave).\u00a0 An additional $54M*<\/strong> in Alternative 4 ROW impacts could be mitigated by increasing the Utility Relocation Costs ($10M).\u00a0 These modifications would bring the Alternative 4 cost estimate below Alternative 2B.\u00a0 But <\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/span>implementing the\u00a0Route 28 STARS recommendation<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Well St Extended recommendation<\/a>\u00a0 is the best alternative for the Route 28 corridor to meet transit, revitalization, and climate\u00a0goals<\/u><\/em><\/strong> and is the cheapest alternative.\u00a0\u00a0The Well St Extended recommendation was not included in the original set of alternatives\u00a0because transit, revitalization and climate were not<\/u><\/em><\/strong> considered part of the project purpose and need.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

A Comparison of Four Route 28 Corridor Alternatives (click on the image above to enlarge for reading)
<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Alternative\u00a02B is not the\u00a0Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and may not receive permits to move forward.<\/u><\/em><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0Creating\u00a0a regional park along this alignment is the best use of the land in the flood plan.<\/p>\n

*<\/strong>8300 CENTREVILLE RD, 8130 OAK ST, 7901 CENTREVILLE RD<\/p>\n

If you need any clarification, please let me know.<\/p>\n

Thanks,<\/p>\n

Mark Scheufler<\/p>\n

PWC Resident<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Active Prince William board member Mark Scheufler sent the following comparison of Route 28 corridor alternatives to the Prince William Board of County Supervisors on November 30, 2020. Dear Prince William Board of County Supervisors: In advance of the December 7th\u00a0 virtual public meeting on Route 28, it is timely to correct misinformation about the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[164,47,205,204,22,78],"tags":[194,214],"class_list":["post-1503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy","category-planning","category-pw-bocs","category-route-28","category-transit","category-transportation","tag-route-28-bypass","tag-well-street-extended","post-preview"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t