1  

Public Information Meeting All Public Comments & Detailed Responses

I-66/Route 15 Interchange Reconstruction From: 0.301 Miles West of US Route 15; To: 0.537 Miles East of US Route 15

State Project-(FO) 0066-076-074, P101, R201, C501, B676, B677, B678, B679, B680 Federal Project – IM-066-1(341); UPC 100566

On October 29, 2014, VDOT conducted a Public Information Meeting at Battlefield High School, 15000 Graduation Drive, Haymarket, VA 20169, for the above referenced project. . All project exhibits on display, the PowerPoint presentation given at the meeting, and this document, are available on the project website: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-66_and_route_15_interchange.asp.    Ninety-three citizens signed the attendance sheet, and 25 individuals and/or entities submitted written or e-mailed comments. This document captures all comments received and VDOT’s responses to each. For the “Executive Summary of Public Comments and Responses,” please use the link available on the project website. Responses to Questions on the Comment Sheet:

Does this Project address the needs for this Interchange? Yes (7); No (3); No Response (2)

Do you have concerns related to the interchange to bring to VDOT’s attention? Yes (11); No (1)

Do you support this project? Yes (12); Did Not Specify, but offered suggestions or asked questions (9); No, did not support current project scope (urged inclusion of railroad overpass) (2); No, did not support project as configured (preferred previous alternative) (2)

Links to Specific Topics (just click on the topic in the list below):

Concerns Related to Safety/Familiarity with DDI Concerns Related to Signage/Traffic Signals/Operations Concerns Related to Construction Impacts/Timing of other Construction Projects Concerns Related to Pedestrian Access Suggestions for Project Improvements Suggestions for Immediate Implementation Concerns Related to Long-Term Viability of the DDI Concerns Related to Parcel 002 (Rose Investments) Concerns Related to Parcel 003 (Signature Companies) Concerns Related to Parcel 011 (The Village at Heathcote) Concerns Related to Validity of Information Presented at the Public Information Meeting Other Comments Concerns Related to the Railroad Crossing at US Route 15 Concerns Related to the I-66 Widening Project

2  

ConcernsRelatedtoSafety/FamiliaritywithDDI

Not sure if it will address the needs. The design makes sense on paper, but how long will it take for folks to get used to it?

VDOT Response: It might take motorists a few times driving through it to become familiar with the DDI configuration; however, it is a very intuitive configuration. As summarized in the FHWA video “Alternate Intersections – Diverging Diamond Interchanges” (a link for which is provided on the project website), there are 3 key features of how a DDI works:

1. A DDI uses the same basic diamond interchange layout that is common in the United States; it consists of 2 entrance ramps and 2 exit ramps.

2. All of the right turns look and work the same as a in a typical diamond interchange. Drivers keep to the right side of the road or ramp (whether turning right from cross road to entrance ramp, or turning right from exit ramp to crossroad).

3. Crossover intersections are what make DDIs different from typical diamonds. They are actually very intuitive: crossovers are designed to gently transition (or diverge) traffic from the right to the left side of the road. Drivers going straight crossover a second time, back to the right side of the road. Drivers turning left (from exit ramp or to entrance ramp) are already on the left side of the road and no longer cross paths with other traffic (again, a major safety advantage – reducing a crash type that can be quite severe – that also results in more efficient operations). These movements are aided by well-designed signage and pavement markings that direct drivers through the interchange.

A simulation of the operations of the DDI is also posted on the project’s webpage; this will help demonstrate operations of this innovative concept.

Snow removal and the impact on traffic flow.

VDOT Response: Snow removal will be similar on the DDI as with a conventional diamond interchange. Interstate and primary roadways are given priority in snow removal operations. The design and construction of the crossover intersections includes overhead and ground mounted signs that will aid snow plow operators should the pavement markings become covered with snow.

Signage that will make it easy for folks not to get screwed up and in the line. What about folks blocking the box?

VDOT Response: Based on the traffic analysis performed to date, even with future forecasted volumes, it is anticipated that there will not be queues that back up through the upstream crossover intersections, or “block the box”. The clearance phase for the signals (or all red) will also be long enough to ensure that the vehicles clear the intersections.

Accidents in the crossovers will block both northbound and southbound traffic. VDOT Response: The number of anticipated accidents, as well as the severity of such accidents, is expected to be reduced with the DDI configuration. While it is not possible to guarantee an

3  

“accident-free” zone, minor accidents can be cleared from the roadway quickly. As there are only two movements permitted at the crossover intersections, motorists will only have one other direction of travel to “keep an eye on” when deciding to enter into the intersection (e.g., the northbound traffic will be stopped when the southbound traffic gets the green light and vice versa).

The Diverging Diamond is very clever and efficient. However, it is unconventional and crossing opposing traffic will probably be disorienting for most drivers. I suspect the incidents of fatal accidents will be higher with this design because of more head on collisions. Have your safety engineers run simulators on this?

VDOT Response: While probable accidents have not been simulated, it is possible to learn from other states’ experiences with DDIs. One study, by the Missouri DOT, indicated that one year after constructing the first DDI in the US, accidents were reduced by 53% and 87% of drivers interviewed felt safer driving through the DDI as compared with the previous conventional diamond interchange.i There are several safety benefits of the DDI, including, but not limited to: (1) the lower design speed (changed from 50 mph to 40 mph) leads to less severe accidents; (2) given the geometric layout of the interchange, each direction of travel will only potentially conflict with one other possible movement when approaching a decision point (crossing other traffic or turning onto another roadway), rather than three in a traditional intersection; and (3) left turns onto the interstate will be made freely, without opposing traffic at the ramp junctions, thereby eliminating the most serious types of accidents.

ConcernsRelatedtoSignage/TrafficSignals/Operations

There are too many traffic lights when you consider the stretch between Catharpin Road and the new development south of the [railroad] tracks. This will be the limiting element of the traffic flow. [As Catharpin Road does not intersect with US Route 15, VDOT assumes the author meant the stretch of US Route 15 from Sudley Road (Route 234) to the new development south of the railroad tracks.]

VDOT Response: While the number of signals along this stretch of US Route 15 will not be reduced with the Diverging Diamond Interchange Project, the proposed two-phase traffic signals at the crossover intersections will improve efficiency of the traffic operations along US Route 15. Each of the two-phase signals will control three movements: northbound and southbound through movements, each having their own respective green time, and left turning movements onto US Route 15 from the interstate (accommodated by one of the two mainline green phases). These signals allow more green time and promote higher traffic flow than in a traditional multi-phase signal. Left turn movements onto the interstate are free-flowing, thus are eliminated from the signal phasing. In addition, pedestrian crossings will be concurrent with the mainline traffic movements, which optimizes the overall signal operations. Each of these unique features of the DDI will improve the overall efficiency of operations of the interchange and reduce the queues along US Route 15.

4  

[Resident’s] real concern is with the whole US Route 15 corridor between Catharpin

Road and Route 29. Has VDOT done a Corridor Study for this? The intersection improvement will help traffic, but there are two weak links not being addressed:

o Necking down to one lane just below the railroad crossing. o The number of traffic lights on this stretch. You are not reducing the number of

lights, and perhaps adding to this with new development south of the railroad crossing.

[As Catharpin Road does not intersect with US Route 15, VDOT assumes the author meant the stretch of US Route 15 from Sudley Road (Route 234) to US Route 29.]

VDOT Response: See response above regarding the number of traffic signals on this stretch of roadway. As for the land development south of the railroad (for which the County permits, not VDOT), there is a planned signal at the US Route 15 and Market Ridge Boulevard. This intersection is south of the southern limits of the Interchange Project. This will leave a short segment of US Route 15 at the railroad crossing which will not be improved at this time. The railroad crossing is addressed in a subsequent section (look for heading “Comments Related to the Railroad Crossing at US Route 15.”

[Resident] thinks what is really needed is a Traffic Flow Analysis with a computer simulation analyzing the traffic flow from Catharpin Road to Route 29. [Resident] sees no evidence that that has been done. [As Catharpin Road does not intersect with US Route 15, VDOT assumes the author meant the stretch of US Route 15 from Sudley Road (Route 234) to Route 29.]

VDOT Response: The traffic operations simulation performed for the interchange reconstruction project (for both the morning and afternoon weekday peak periods for the year 2036) includes the stretch of US Route 15 from the intersection of Heathcote Boulevard to just south of VA Route 55 (these simulations can be viewed from the project website). The scope of the Interchange Project does not include a traffic analysis of the entire network between Sudley Road and US Route 29; however, upon completion of the interchange reconstruction, the traffic signal timings will be adjusted and coordinated along the US Route 15 corridor to maximize efficiency of corridor operations.

The afternoon and weekend traffic is much worse than the morning. [Resident] really hopes in [VDOT’s] design plan that [VDOT] addresses other problems that cause traffic to back up dangerously in the area:

o Building a bridge for US Route 15 over the railroad track. Trains repeatedly use this section of track during the afternoon causing massive delays. The only other alternative would be to severely restrict track usage between 3-7 pm.

o Left turns from US Route 15 southbound immediately after VA Route 55 into the Sheetz station and other businesses. These turns are very dangerous, and again cause delays and drivers slamming on their brakes unexpectedly, especially for drivers who are unfamiliar with the area.

5  

VDOT Response: The intersection of US Route 15 and VA Route 55 will be improved with the interchange project. Today, leftmost through lane of southbound US Route 15 becomes one of the two turn lanes to VA Route 55 eastbound. This may cause driver confusion, for motorists intending to stay straight on US Route 15 who may be forced to make a lane change. With the current design of the Diverging Diamond, three lanes will be available heading southbound, with rightmost lane becoming the turn lane to head westbound on VA Route 55. There will be a dual left turn bay (separated from the through lanes) provided for vehicles destined for eastbound VA Route 55 (Washington Street). Signage will also be provided to assist motorists align in the proper lane for their intended destination. VDOT has no authority to restrict usage of railroad tracks; however, VDOT and Prince William County have identified a potential project to provide a grade separated crossing at the railroad tracks. The railroad crossing will be addressed more fully in a subsequent section (look for heading “Comments Related to the Railroad Crossing at US Route 15”).

During rush hour, the traffic backs up from I-66 to north of Old Carolina Road and part way to Lightner Road. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. Once the I-66 intersection is redone, the weakest link will be the number of traffic lights and a single lane below the tracks. I strongly recommend that action be taken to remedy these problems by the time the intersection is done, or we will be wasting our money.

VDOT Response: See the first response above regarding the number of traffic signals on this stretch of roadway. Furthermore, the signals today are timed to promote access to I-66 eastbound in the morning peak period, which causes delays to the southbound through movements. With the DDI, left turns are eliminated from the signalized intersections, which will improve the efficiency of through movements. Again, the railroad crossing is addressed in a subsequent section (look for heading “Comments Related to the Railroad Crossing at US Route 15”).

The number of traffic lights between Catharpin Road and Route 29 are not being reduced. [Resident is] dubious that the Divergent Diamond approach will increase traffic thru put on US Route 15 to any significant extent. Current southbound traffic backs up almost to Lightner Road during high traffic times. You have to wait multiple traffic light cycles to get past Old Carolina Road and Heathcote Boulevard because traffic is backed up from the two existing I66 traffic lights. The Divergent Diamond replaces these two traffic lights with two new ones. The VDOT people told [resident] at the meeting that the new approach is more efficient, but [resident] did not see the data. . [As Catharpin Road does not intersect with US Route 15, VDOT assumes the author meant the stretch of US Route 15 from Sudley Road (Route 234) to Route 29.]

VDOT Response: See the first response above regarding the number of traffic signals on this stretch of roadway. With regard to the traffic operational data, the draft Supplemental Interchange Modification Report notes that overall delays would be reduced by approximately 40% in each the morning and afternoon peak periods, as compared to the previous concept (Modified Diamond Interchange with Flyover (or Semi-Directional) Ramp)). In terms of queue lengths, the DDI would experience equal or shorter average queues in nearly three-quarters of

6  

the individual movements in both the morning and afternoon peak periods. The Supplemental Interchange Modifications Report is currently being finalized.

It poorly processes through traffic, and subjects the southbound to eastbound movement

to an additional signal, with significantly higher delays for this movement.

VDOT Response: With the DDI concept, the vehicles that would have used the flyover ramp (of the previous concept) will be distributed over more US Route 15 southbound lanes (rather than stacking solely in the right lane on the approach to the flyover ramp). With the Flyover Ramp concept, motorists could also make last minute lane changes to access the flyover ramp in front of any long queues, which could lead to safety issues. In the DDI, once motorists pass through the first crossover signalized intersection, the left-turning traffic will shift one or two lanes to the left to make the turn onto the ramp to I-66 eastbound. The traffic analysis for the 2036 Design Year shows that, compared to the Flyover Ramp Concept, delays experienced by motorists traveling southbound on Route 15 in the DDI design will be higher in some periods/ movements, and lower in one period/ movement; however, both the DDI and Flyover Ramp Concepts provide acceptable Levels of Service for all southbound Route 15 movements.. At the northern crossover intersection, delays would be nearly double in the morning peak period (but equivalent to a Level of Service C, well below capacity), and approximately 50% higher in the afternoon peak period (or a Level of Service D, which is considered acceptable). At the southern crossover intersection, the southbound through movement would experience a decrease in delay in the morning peak period of approximately 35% (Level of Service B), and a threefold increase in the afternoon peak period (but still a Level of Service C). Of note, the DDI interchange will function at an overall Level of Service B for both the morning and afternoon peak periods, whereas the previous Modified Diamond Interchange with Flyover Ramp concept would have operated at Level of Service C. There are no individual movements anticipated to experience a Level of Service F in the DDI; however three movements were anticipated to experience a Level of Service F with the Flyover Ramp Concept (one in the morning peak period and two in afternoon peak period).

Using a quantitative analysis, it does not function equally or better (using numbers, not 3 lumped “levels of congestion”) – specifically, intersection delay and cumulative volumes through signals.

VDOT Response: With the DDI concept, nearly three-quarters of the individual movements will be improved (i.e., experience shorter delays and shorter queues) in the morning and afternoon peak periods, respectively, while less than one-quarter of the individual movements will experience longer delays and longer queues, as compared to the Modified Diamond Interchange with Flyover Ramp concept. The detailed analyses will be reported in the Supplemental Interchange Modification Report.

The modeling presented does not address the following: o All southbound US Route 15 through traffic, all southbound traffic to VA Route

55 eastbound and all southbound traffic to I-66 eastbound uses the left lane only at the north DDI intersection. This will experience incredible queues.

7  

o Westbound I-66 to northbound US Route 15 traffic must merge left two lanes across traffic destined for Heathcote Boulevard.

VDOT Response: As stated above, with the elimination of the southbound to eastbound flyover ramp, the same movement will be distributed over more lanes rather than stacking solely in the right lane on the approach to the flyover ramp. The left-turning traffic can then shift one or two lanes to the left to make the maneuver to the ramp to I-66 eastbound, without having to compete with other traffic bound for US Route 15 southbound. Additionally, given that the crossover intersection signal only requires two phases, it will be able to process more through vehicles than the existing multi-phase signal today. In the DDI concept, the westbound I-66 to northbound US Route 15 traffic will be able to access US Route 15 unopposed during the southbound through phase of the crossover intersection signal. When merging with traffic, during the northbound phase of the same signal, traffic will be able to merge into the right turn lane for Heathcote Boulevard and then transition one lane to the left to head north on US Route 15. The merge from the free-flow right turn to northbound US Route 15 has been designed in accordance with VDOT and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requirements. Traffic analysis demonstrates that the merge area and shift from the right turn lane into the northbound through lane of US Route 15 operates satisfactorily.

Please report the cumulative delay of this concept versus the flyover concept, delay per vehicle per intersection multiplied by the number of vehicles traveling through each intersection.

VDOT Response: Cumulative delay is generally not used as a measure of effectiveness when reporting operational analyses results (and was not reported in the original Interchange Modification Report for the Modified Diamond Interchange with Flyover Ramp, so if generated for the DDI, results could not be compared). As stated above, however, the overall interchange delay per vehicle would be reduced with the DDI as compared to the Modified Diamond Interchange with Flyover Ramp Concept. The operational analyses will be detailed in the Supplemental Interchange Modifications Report, which is subject to VDOT and FHWA approval prior to construction.

The need for improvements is obvious; however, [resident] can’t envision the improvements mentioned and how the actual traffic will flow at the intersections mentioned. Better traffic conditions are essential to attracting needed businesses and companies to our area, as well as providing the quality daily living for the residents.

VDOT Response: The VISSIM (traffic modeling software) simulations of future weekday morning and evening rush hours have been posted to the project website to help viewers understand how traffic flows through the DDI. The FHWA-produced video entitled “Alternative Intersections: Diverging Diamond Interchange” is also available via a link on the project website. It may take a few minutes for these video files to load and run, so please be patient when accessing the links.

8  

[Resident does] not support the project in its current configuration. As a Haymarket resident, I am very concerned with long-term operations of this interchange that has much higher volumes (including through traffic) than other DDIs in Virginia.

VDOT Response: Studies have shown the DDI configuration to work well at interchanges with volumes that can no longer be accommodated by standard diamond interchanges. For example, a study conducted by HDR, Inc.ii showed that a DDI in Ashland, Oregon operates at 39.7% of its capacity without adding more lanes, whereas the standard diamond interchange would have operated at 65.2% of its capacity. Similarly, a traffic analysis comparison of a DDI in Kansas City, Missouri to a standard diamond interchange showed that the DDI could operate at 60% of its capacity, versus 95% that of the standard diamond interchange. In some cases, the DDI has been shown to out-perform the Single Point Urban Interchange configuration, which was the “other” concept presented at the VDOT Public Hearing in March 2013. The Federal Highway Administration’s video (available in the project’s webpage) notes: DDIs have been usually deployed at locations with heavy traffic volumes, several states have adopted DDIs to ease traffic congestion at busy interchanges, the key feature of DDIs (crossover points at each end of the bridge) is actually the reason why the DDI functions so smoothly, allowing for better traffic flow and safer left turns between the interchange and freeway.  The previous VDOT concept was a standard diamond interchange with a flyover ramp that focused improvements on one single heavy movement. VDOT is confident that the DDI will work well in this location.

Has there been adequate planning for the additional traffic generated by new housing now being built and that is planned for the future? Over the last 35 years, northern Virginia has continually played catch up on traffic conditions. The approach has been to wait until traffic conditions are intolerable before seeking alleviation. At that point, correction causes major interruptions of long duration. In some cases, the correction causes major problems for residential communities, loss of land and sometimes homes and/or businesses. More foresight, being realistic about future growth and planning for it, is better than catch up.

VDOT Response: Traffic forecasts have been generated for the future horizon year of 2036, and these volumes are used in the traffic analyses and design to demonstrate the adequacy of the interchange configuration. The traffic forecasts incorporate all trips generated by existing, planned, and anticipated development. Land use decisions are made by the localities, the entities which have authority over development approvals.

Based on discussions with project staff at the “information meeting”, [resident] understands that updated traffic counts have not been collected prior to design of this DDI. [Resident] also understand that DDI’s function best when “thru” movements are low, since queuing of traffic at the DDI signals is reduced. Traffic patterns have significantly changed over the past year due to new developments and housing growth south of VA Route 55 on US Route 15 and east and west of US Route 15 on VA Route 55. Before this interchange is “approved” by VDOT, Prince William County, the Town of Haymarket, and Federal Highways, updated traffic counts must be collected to ensure that old, outdated counts are still representative to current traffic patterns.

9  

VDOT Response: As with the design of any improvement project, the design of the DDI is based on future forecasted volumes (year 2036), not on current volumes. Upon project initiation, traffic counts were collected at four US Route 15 intersections; these were used in the development of traffic forecasts and associated traffic studies. Once the Linton Hall Road interchange is complete (or after traffic is shifted onto the Linton Hall Road overpass), there may yet again be a change in travel patterns, as many vehicles bound for areas south along Route 29 may no longer be “cutting through” US Route 15 in the Town of Haymarket. That would be the appropriate time to collect up-to-date traffic counts. Additional traffic counts will be collected for the purpose of establishing “opening day” signal timing and for developing the traffic management plan to be used during construction. Regarding the functionality of the DDI, studies performed by Missouri DOT (Missouri being the home of the first DDI in America) and the Federal Highway Administration indicate that DDIs are safer and more efficient than a standard diamond interchange, with less delay, fewer stops, reduced stop times and shorter queue lengths than conventional diamond interchanges. Even with fewer lanes, throughput was increased by 10 to 30% and delays reduced by 10 to 60% (these figures are for all traffic movements, not just left turns). The requirements placed upon the Design-Builder as a result of it exercising its right to submit an innovative design solution at the time of procurement are: (1) to prepare additional environmental studies in support of a NEPA Re-evaluation, (2) conduct appropriate level of public involvement efforts, and (3) prepare and obtain approval of a Supplemental Interchange Modification Report. All three of these steps must be accomplished prior to the reconstruction of the interchange.

The original interchange, which was previous accepted through a formal public hearing process, included a direct “fly-over” connection for the heavy southbound US Route 15 to eastbound I-66 movement (over 1,200 vehicles) has now been re-routed further south on US Route 15 through a signalized intersection in the DDI. The flyover must be added back to the project and the at-grade crossings within the DDI must be eliminated.

VDOT Response: The previous alternative was presented at the 2013 Public Hearing, but the design had not yet been finalized nor had it been approved by the Federal Highway Administration. That design had “at-grade” crossings, too, but required three phase signals to permit left turns onto the interstate (rather than the more efficient two phase signals and free-flowing left turns at the crossover intersections of the DDI). The flyover ramp was a single lane ramp that could not be easily widened should it need to be in the future. Additionally, the flyover ramp focused on addressing only one heavy turning movement in the interchange. There were still issues and concerns related to weaving and merging elsewhere in the interchange, and accessing Heathcote Boulevard westbound from the I-66 westbound off-ramp. These locations were identified in the Design-Build Contract document as opportunities for innovative solutions by the Design-Builder. The DDI is an innovative solution that the Department is confident will responsibly address these noted elements of the previous alternative, as well as accommodate traffic demand and enhance safety.

10  

The new exit ramp configuration from the westbound I-66 to northbound US Route 15 provides a connection for traffic to Heathcote, but the length of this connection is only about 150’. This means that once about 8 cars stop to use this connection, the ramp for traffic destined for points north on US Route 15 (such as Dominion Valley) will be completely blocked, ultimately leading to queues extending back towards and potentially onto westbound I-66.

VDOT Response: Based on the signal timing and phasing along with the anticipated number of motorists wishing to make this maneuver (I-66 westbound to Heathcote Blvd. westbound), the traffic modeling demonstrates that the ramp is adequate as designed, queues are not shown to back up onto the interstate, nor does it show motorists will block the ramp from I-66 westbound to US Route 15 northbound.

Since US Route 15 had to be widened to 3 lanes through the interchange to make it “work”, there is now only a short merge area (appears to be less than 200’) for westbound I-66 traffic destined for points to the north on US Route 15. Further, once traffic merges to the left within this inadequate auxiliary lane area, they will need to move left again before getting to the intersection with Heathcote. This means the heavy westbound to northbound movement needs to change 2 lanes between the intersection and Heathcote Boulevard. This significant volume and required weave will have significant impacts to the operation of northbound US Route 15 in the evening rush “hour”.

VDOT Response: As stated above, with the current design of the DDI, the westbound I-66 to northbound US Route 15 traffic will be able to access US Route 15 unopposed during the southbound through phase of the crossover intersection signal. When merging with traffic during the northbound phase of the same signal, traffic exiting I-66 westbound will merge into the Route 15 northbound right turn lane destined for Heathcote Boulevard and then transition one lane to the left to head north on US Route 15. The merge from the free flow right turn to northbound US Route 15 has been designed in accordance with VDOT and the AASHTO requirements. Traffic analysis demonstrates that the merge area and shift from the right turn lane into the northbound through lane of US Route 15 operates satisfactorily.

The southbound US Route 15 lane configuration above I-66 only provides a “shared” thru/turn lane onto I-66 and a short left turn lane which opens on the bridge. Due to heavy through volumes on southbound US Route 15, this diverge point to “turn” onto eastbound I-66 will become clogged from traffic stopped at the southern DDI intersection, ultimately rippling through the northern DDI intersection and beyond.

VDOT Response: Traffic analysis for the design year 2036 demonstrates that the interchange will operate effectively. Traffic modeling shows that traffic will not back up from the southern DDI intersection to block the US Route 15 southbound movement to eastbound I-66, the northern DDI intersection, and beyond as stated in the comment.

When the Commonwealth Transportation Board accepted the proposal for the DDI from the awarded contractor, VDOT stated that the interchange had a “lower capacity” than the original interchange (per transcripts of the meeting). Why would we ever accept an

11  

interchange with lower capacity given the development in the Haymarket area and on the US Route 15 corridor?

VDOT Response: The Chief Engineer, while responding to a question regarding the number of Design-Build teams that submitted Statements of Qualifications and were short-listed, stated that the innovative design solution presented by the Successful Offeror had eliminated the flyover ramp. The reference he made to the “lower capacity” was in direct reference to the eliminated flyover ramp and the turning movement it carried; he went on to state that the proposed design concept “met the traffic standards.” VDOT is confident that the DDI is an innovative solution that will adequately accommodate traffic demand while enhancing safety.

VDOT indicated that the design of US Route 15 was changed to 40 mph instead of 50 mph so that the DDI concept was feasible. Why would you reduce the design speed just to get an interchange concept to work, especially given the higher traffic volumes in the area and adjacent sections of roadway both north and south which are posted at 55 mph?

VDOT Response: VDOT, in conjunction with Prince William County and Town of Haymarket staff, agreed that the design speed could be lowered to 40 mph, given that this section of US Route 15 is in an urban environment, motorists are entering into the Town of Haymarket, and because of the significant benefits associated with the Diverging Diamond Interchange concept (smaller footprint, reduced right of way impacts, reduced visual impacts, reduced future maintenance costs, reduced construction costs/timeline, operational and safety benefits, etc.). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the Diverging Diamond Interchange concept works equally as well as or better than the Modified Diamond Interchange with Flyover Ramp, even at a lower speed. Finally, the corridor north and south of the interchange is not posted at 55 mph. Along US Route 15 from just north of Heathcote Boulevard and approximately 600 feet south of the railroad crossing, both directions of US Route 15 has a posted speed limit of 40 mph

ConcernsRelatedtoConstructionImpacts/TimingofotherConstructionProjects

Time/chaos/inconvenience to build from start to finish. [Resident] hopeful that the DDI will work as planned but also concerned that it won’t.

VDOT Response: The DDI will take less time to construct than the original concept of the Modified Diamond Interchange with flyover ramp. Though construction of any sort is inconvenient, the Design-Builder is currently developing a transportation management plan to minimize impacts to motorists and pedestrians during construction. The intent is to construct one of the two new bridges further to the west, while the two existing bridges remain open to traffic. Then, the southbound US Route 15 traffic will be moved over the new bridge, and the northbound traffic moved to the existing southbound bridge, so that the existing northbound bridge can be demolished and a new bridge built in its place. Northbound traffic will be moved over to the new bridge, and the existing northbound bridge will be demolished. Therefore, during all phases of construction, four lanes (two northbound and two southbound) will remain

12  

open at all times. Off-peak lane closures will be required on VA Route 55 and elsewhere along US Route 15 at times, but at least one lane in each direction will be maintained.

[Resident] appreciates the end goal of the project that is proposed for the I-66/15 Interchange, but is extremely concerned about the timing of the project and the impact on traffic to those living in the area. With the construction currently happening on the Linton Hall/Lee Highway interchange, a lot of drivers chose to reroute through Haymarket to avoid congestion there. Now that the Old Carolina Bridge is closed for reconstruction, the US Route 15 interchange is absorbing much more traffic and has gotten much more congested. If Highway 15 is going to be narrowed to two lanes during part of the project, [resident] thinks it will make getting through Gainesville and Haymarket a nightmare. If construction on that interchange could be delayed until other routes are completed the community would have another option. Having those three construction projects within a couple of miles of each other is more than the traffic in the area can bear.

VDOT Response: As described above, no fewer than four lanes will be maintained on US Route 15 at all times during the I-66/Route 15 Interchange reconstruction project. Since the interchange reconstruction project will begin with the construction of one of the two new bridges, the Linton Hall Road interchange reconstruction project will likely be complete prior to the second phase of construction of the I-66/Route 15 Interchange reconstruction project. The I-66 Widening Project will be completed in late summer 2016, while the Old Carolina Road Bridge will be completed in spring 2016. The same contractor is responsible for the Linton Hall Road Interchange and the I-66 Widening Project. All three projects will be coordinated with one another in order to keep all traffic moving during all phases of construction.

ConcernsRelatedtoPedestrianAccess

[Resident] strongly supports the I-66/Route 15 interchange project and its overall aim to alleviate congestion. However, one concern [resident] has with the design is the multi-use path that is currently proposed. According to [VDOT’s] drawing, any pedestrians wishing to access establishments around and in the Town of Haymarket from north of I-66 will have to cross between 4-8 crosswalks to do so. In [resident’s] opinion, this is a very high number of crosswalks to traverse and it will only dissuade residents and workers from points north (such as the hospital and neighboring communities) from walking or biking to nearby retain and eateries. Therefore, [resident] suggests VDOT consider the integration of a pedestrian dedicated bridge that can cut down on the number of crosswalks. Not only will it improve safety for those that use it, but also bring a higher level of connectivity between the development north and south of I-66.

VDOT Response: The Department has considered pedestrian options, and has opted (in coordination with the Prince William County staff and in discussions with the Town of Haymarket staff) to move the shared use path to the west side of US Route 15, whereby the pedestrians will cross over the lower volume ramps, than if the shared use path was located on the east side of US Route 15. It should be noted, however, that this DDI will be inherently safer

13  

in terms of pedestrian safety than a traditional diamond interchange as pedestrians will cross at signalized intersections (with push button pedestrian signals) at all but one unsignalized ramp junction. This one unsignalized ramp junction also has the single lowest volume of all movements within the interchange. There are a number of challenges to providing pedestrian bridges, including:, additional right of way requirements (which in turn require additional environmental studies and cause for project delays), visual impacts, construction and long-term maintenance costs, and less desirable potential effects such as graffiti, waste disposal issues, and vagrancy (each of these have occurred in other locations). To accommodate long linear or switch-back ramps to meet the American with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, properties adjacent to Route 15 could be substantially affected. VDOT has constructed a number of pedestrian bridges throughout the Northern Virginia District and found that, depending on the surrounding environs and the ease of access to the pedestrian bridge, pedestrians generally still choose to cross at-grade.

Request evaluation of possible pedestrian bridges over US Route 15 at the VA Route55 and the Heathcote Boulevard intersections.

VDOT Response: VDOT does not support designing and constructing pedestrian bridges at the requested intersections for the following reasons:

o Pedestrian bridges require compliance with ADAAG, which means access via (1) either long linear ramps or switchback ramps up to the bridge height (not to exceed 5% linear grade with level landings as appropriate), or (2) elevators and stairwells. Each of these accessible routes cause for considerable maintenance and upkeep over the life of the structure. The first two options (ramps) would significantly impact right of way on the adjacent parcels

o The bridges would exceed the footprint as evaluated in the Environmental [NEPA] document for this project; therefore would cause for delay to the project schedule.

o Pedestrian bridges will introduce additional visual impacts. o It is outside the scope of the Design-Build project, for which a significant change order

would have to be executed. It is not certain at this time what the expected cost would be and if there is sufficient funding in place to accommodate.

o VDOT’s experience with pedestrian bridges is that they tend to be underutilized, as pedestrian still prefer to take the most direct route to their intended destination.

Request evaluation of a possible stop condition for vehicles at the crosswalk location

from southbound US Route 15 to the I-66 westbound ramp or other type of protection for pedestrians at this location.

VDOT Response: The design is such that the pedestrians will cross this low volume ramp with adequate sight distance to observe gaps in traffic to safety clear the ramp. Additionally, by Virginia Code § 46.2-924, “the driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway.” A stop sign for motorists at the entrance ramp is not supported; however, VDOT will consider additional signs, such as Yield to Pedestrians or Stop Signs on the shared use path, to enhance pedestrian safety.

14  

SuggestionsforProjectImprovements

Finish before 2017. VDOT Response: VDOT and the Design-Build team are working toward early completion as one of its goals.

Flyover from I-66 westbound exit to US 15 southbound that is approximately ½ mile long and touches down south of the railroad tracks.

VDOT Response: A flyover conveying I-66 westbound to US Route 15 southbound would not eliminate the need for at-grade intersections for local traffic bound for the Town of Haymarket. A flyover ramp of this magnitude would also require substantial amounts of right of way, potential loss of businesses along US Route 15, would be very expensive to construct, and would not solve the issue of the at-grade railroad crossing for the mainline of US Route 15.

Need an additional US 15 northbound lane (2) from westbound I-66. VDOT Response: The operational analysis demonstrates that the single lane ramp from I-66 westbound to US Route 15 northbound will work adequately, in part due to the two phase signal at the crossover intersections of the DDI. The westbound to northbound movement will be free flow during the southbound through phase of the traffic signal, and will otherwise have to merge with traffic during the northbound through phase of the same signal. Regardless, this ramp junction will be closely evaluated by the team to see if additional improvements are necessary.

The traffic flow analysis should be done for the whole stretch between Catharpin Road and Route 29. [As Catharpin Road does not intersect with US Route 15, VDOT assumes the author meant the stretch of US Route 15 from Sudley Road (Route 234) to US Route 29.]

VDOT Response: Though a good one, the suggestion for a large scale transportation network study is unfortunately not within the scope identified for this project or for the Design-Build team. It should be noted that the VDOT Northern Regional Operations staff routinely evaluates the signal timings along corridors such as the stretch of US Route 15 and makes signal timing adjustments to help traffic flow better.

The interchange [I-66 and US Route 15] should eliminate the traffic lights. VDOT Response: The only interchange alternatives that could eliminate traffic signals include: a cloverleaf interchange, a relatively new concept called the Pinavia Interchange (from Lithuania, shown below), or other multi-level interchanges similar to the Springfield Interchange. These alternatives, however, are not deemed viable given the development or planned development in all four quadrants of the interchange and the existing terrain (nearly a 25 foot vertical drop between the hospital and the I-66 westbound lanes).

 

B

VDOT Rproblemsthat the Dprovides other benfuture ma

B VDOT RFlyover addresseterm maisouthbouintersecti

Build one of t

Response: Ts associatedDepartment solutions to

nefits (smallaintenance c

Build flyover

Response: Ramp only

es three of thintenance cound US Routions.

the concepts

The concepts d with weavit is confideno the problemler footprint,costs, reduce

r bridge.

The flyoverfocused on

e most criticosts, visual ite 15 in the m

s that was pr

presented aing, mergingnt will respomatic areas , reduced riged constructi

r bridge of n one heavycal movemenimpacts, andmorning pea

resented at th

at the Publicg, and signansibly addreof the previ

ght of way imion costs/tim

the previouy travel monts. The flyod would cauk periods ca

he Public He

c Hearing weage. The DDess traffic dious conceptmpacts, redu

meline, etc.).

us Modified ovement in over bridge wuse vehicles ausing for qu

earing.

ere not withDDI is an inndemands andts, and provuced visual

Diamond Ithe interchawould otherwto stack in

ueues and de

out flaws, hanovative sold enhance savides a numbimpacts, red

Interchange ange. The wise add to the right la

elays at upst

15 

aving lution afety, ber of duced

with DDI

long-ane of tream

16  

Can you please create an artist rendition of what the new interchange will look like? VDOT Response: Please visit the VDOT webpage to see the PowerPoint Presentation as delivered at the October 29, 2014 Public Information Meeting. It contains details of the proposed architectural and aesthetic treatments, as well as the layout of the interchange. The traffic simulation models, which are also available on the project website, illustrate how the interchange will function from a motorist’s perspective. The traffic simulation models have also been improved (from those shown at the Public Information Meeting) to give a better rendition of what the interchange will look like when completed.

If VDOT instead decides to build a lower capacity interchange such as the DDI, then the westbound exit ramp MUST be widened to 5 lanes to accommodate the triple lefts, a right turn to Heathcote, and a right turn to northbound US Route 15. This would eliminate the delays that will occur with the current shared right turn lane as designed. It appears this could be accomplished by additional widening on the left side of the ramp for the left turn lanes, or additional lane on the right for the right turn lane to northbound US Route 15.

VDOT Response: It has been demonstrated that the DDI interchange has an adequate overall capacity. The westbound exit ramp can accommodate the turning maneuvers anticipated in the year 2036 as it is currently designed. The Design-Build team will, however, closely evaluate the ramp junction and the anticipated operations to determine if any adjustments need to be made.

The lane configuration on northbound US Route 15 needs to be revised north of the interchange so that a two-lane weave is not required for traffic from westbound I-66 destined for northbound US Route 15 beyond the Heathcote intersection.

VDOT Response: Weaving is inevitable given the close proximity of the Heathcote Boulevard intersection to the I-66/Route 15 interchange. The merge from the right turn to northbound US Route 15 has been designed in accordance with VDOT and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requirements. Traffic analysis demonstrates that the merge area and shift from the right turn lane into the northbound through lane of US Route 15 operates satisfactorily.

The eastbound acceleration lane, which provides the two lane entrance noted in the handout, needs to be extended as far as possible, at least to the point it was originally shown with the old interchange configuration.

VDOT Response: The merge/transition area was designed in accordance with AASHTO requirements; however, the Design-Build Team will consider whether the second lane on the ramp can and should be extended.

17  

SuggestionsforImmediateImplementation

Every day in the afternoon and early evening (@ 3 to 6 pm) the southbound traffic on US Route 15 is backing up well north of Old Carolina. The timing of the traffic lights that control the number of vehicles able to turn from the westbound I-66 off ramp onto southbound US 15 has been changed in the last few months and needs to be adjusted to help clear some of the congestion from southbound US 15. Review the timing of the lights that control the movement from westbound I-66 onto southbound US Route 15, and adjust to facilitate more volume throughput on southbound US Route 15 and alleviate traffic backups that daily extend beyond Heathcote Boulevard and north of Old Carolina Road. This is especially critical between 3 and 6 pm, when the schools north of I-66 are dismissed (e.g., Battlefield High and Reagan Middle schools).

VDOT Response: VDOT will review and may be able to adjust the timings of these traffic signals even before construction of the Interchange begins, and again after the major traffic shift is made at Linton Hall Road Interchange, as it is anticipated that traffic patterns may change in the Town of Haymarket as a result of the traffic shift. It should be noted, however, that during the construction of the I-66/Route 15 Interchange project, additional delays can be expected.

An extreme safety hazard exists every day and early evening (@ 4 to 7 pm) at the point where southbound US 15 traffic is lining up to cross northbound US 15 and enter the on ramp to eastbound I-66. The vehicles back up from the turn lane into the travel lane, blocking all movement in the east lane of southbound US 15. This blocks vehicles that intend to enter the turn lanes for eastbound VA 55 to Haymarket and further compounds the problems with southbound US 15 through traffic, vehicles exiting I-66 westbound onto southbound US 15, and vehicles existing eastbound I-66 onto US 15 in either direction. Close the ramp for eastbound I-66 to southbound US 15 traffic each non-holiday weekday from 4 to 7 pm. Install signage north of Heathcote Boulevard on southbound US 15 directing all traffic intending for I-66 eastbound to take Heathcote Boulevard eastbound and enter I-66 at US 29 from 4 to 7 pm. Install gates at the US 15 turn lane for eastbound I-66 to close that turn lane from 4 to 7 pm. Install appropriate signage and marking directing any vehicles not able to utilize Heathcote Boulevard on southbound US 15 and intending for I-66 eastbound (at that junction during those hours) to take eastbound US 55 through Haymarket to US 29 or proceed on southbound US 15 to US 29 in order to access eastbound I-66.

VDOT Response: VDOT cannot restrict access to an interstate without approval by Federal Highway Administration. Additionally, redirecting traffic to other routes would likely result in additional delays, queues and congestion on other portions of the roadway network.

Perhaps the single highest priority: An extreme safety HAZARD exists every day and early evening (@ 4 to 7 pm) at the point where southbound US 15 traffic has the opportunity to enter turn lanes for US 55 in either direction or proceed southbound on US 29. Because of the extreme traffic congestion at points farther north on US 15 (north of

18  

Old Carolina, at Old Carolina, at Heathcote, at westbound I-66 ramps, at eastbound I-66 ramps) vehicles that are sitting in the backup and intending for points south of VA 55 on US 15 are FREQUENTLY accelerating into the turn lanes for eastbound VA 55 and speeding ahead of the southbound US 15 backup and then stopping in the travel lane, blocking ALL traffic while attempting to re-enter the queue for southbound US 15 OR making a dangerous maneuver to cut back over into the line for southbound US 15 just before the intersection with VA 55. IMMEDIATELY install tubular markers on southbound US 15 between the through lane for southbound US 15 and the turn lanes for eastbound US 55 from just south of the intersection with eastbound I-66 ramp to the intersection with US 55. Tubular markers are cylindrical in shape and often white or orange, with bands of reflective material near the top. They must be at least 18 inches (0.46 m) in height and 2 inches (51 mm) in body diameter. Tubular markers are made of flexible plastic and have a wider base that is glued or screwed to the pavement.

VDOT Response: Today, the leftmost through lane on southbound US Route 15 at the I-66 interchange becomes one of the two turn lanes to VA Route 55 eastbound. This does cause for driver confusion, if indeed motorists intend to stay straight on US Route 15 and are forced to make a lane change. Tubular markers would only force motorists to make lane changes further north through the interchange, which could lead to more confusion and potentially more collisions. VDOT does not concur with the use of tubular markers in this particular scenario.

An extreme safety hazard exists every day and early evening (@ 4 to 7 pm) at the point where southbound US 15 traffic intersects with exit ramp from eastbound I-66. Vehicles that are intending for VA 55 and points south on US 15 are consistently blocking the roadway at the traffic signal due to congestion and during the cycle of the signal, preventing vehicles on the eastbound I-66 off ramp from entering US 15 in either direction. Place appropriate overhead signage and high visibility markings on the roadway surface indicating “DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION” and indicating “STOP HERE” for vehicles traveling on Southbound US 15.

VDOT Response: VDOT will consider additional ground mounted signage where possible; however, it is not possible to add overhead signage on the existing US Route 15 bridges as they were not designed to accommodate overhead sign structures.

Vehicle traffic on southbound US 15 south of the turn lane to access the area of Sheetz and Pickle Bob’s are frequently blocked by vehicles that are waiting to turn across northbound US 15 into the businesses located there. There is adequate area on the southbound shoulder to install a temporary lane that would allow vehicles to pass the stopped vehicle on the right and continue southbound. At this time vehicles are either being blocked and backing up traffic or driving off the paved surface of the road to pass on the shoulder. Pave a temporary lane to the west of the area that is commonly used for vehicles that are waiting to cross northbound US 15 just to the south of the Sheetz. The lane should be adequate to allow most passenger vehicles to pass a stopped vehicle but not sufficient to allow a vehicle to accelerate past a slower moving vehicle that is not stopped and waiting to turn across northbound US 15.

19  

VDOT Response: To design and construct a usable passing lane requires a bit more than placing temporary pavement as suggested. This would require substantial efforts to adequately widen a significant section of US Route 15 in order to provide for the safe and proper lane tapers, transition lengths and a deceleration area. Drainage, grading, potential utility conflicts, available right of way would also need to be considered.

ConcernsRelatedtoLong‐TermViabilityoftheDDI

There is also little flexibility for future widening. VDOT Response: On the contrary, DDIs can be designed to be on highways from two to ten lanes (one to five in each direction), and given the reduced number of traffic signal phases at the cross over intersections, can still process more vehicles than a traditional diamond interchange.

ConcernsRelatedtoParcel002(RoseInvestments)

Rose Investments has the following comments: o Avoid the Fence. [Owner] requests that the project avoid disturbing the fence

surrounding the property to the rear of the Rose Property, identified as 6620 James Madison Highway, Haymarket, VA, which is also owned by Rose. This fence is located in part on the Rose Property, but the fenced area is within the leased area for the tenant located at 6630 James Madison Highway.

o Loading Dock Issues. The current tenant leasing the Rose Property is a catering business that utilizes the loading dock at the rear of the building. [Owner] questions how this tenant will be able to remain at the Rose Property, and access the loading dock, during construction of the parking area in the rear. It is also unclear why a new parking area must be constructed in the rear when there is already paving in that area.

o Access Issues. The introduction of a median along the frontage of the Rose Property will eliminate left turn movements into the Rose Property. This is not desirable. Also, the driveway off of the new access road being constructed through the Rose Property does not appear to accommodate access to the rear of the building on the Rose Property.

o Parking Issues. [Owner] inquires whether a parking study has been performed to ensure that sufficient parking will be available to the Rose Property after the VDOT project is complete.

o Site Visit Requested. [Owner] is very concerned that the existing business leasing the Rose Property will not be able to remain, and that it will be difficult to lease space to any tenant. [Owner] therefore requests a site visit with the VDOT design team to discuss these issues and determine whether an alternative design may be agreed upon.

20  

VDOT Response: The project team will work with the property owner to develop a parking layout, a new fence location, and internal circulation that best serves the needs of the property owner and tenants. The intent is to provide same number of parking spaces that serve the businesses today with any revision to the site as part of the interchange project. Construction on-site can also be scheduled to minimize disruption to the owner/tenant. The project team will further evaluate the entrance off of the new service road to allow for truck access to Parcel 003 and improved access/circulation to Parcel 002. The Department and Design-Builder are amenable to meeting with the property owner to review the owner’s concerns and evaluate possible alternative design concepts.

ConcernsRelatedtoParcel003(SignatureCompanies)

[Owner] of property has a 50-foot easement across the property shown as the turn back to access the Shoppes, Sheetz and Self Storage, as well as Kapp Valley Way. Concerns are as follows:

o Entrance to site needs to be better aligned with traffic flow around parking lot. o The entrance must accommodate tractor trailer access which happens on a daily

basis. o The left hand turn onto US Route 15 south is a major concern. The current design

has only one lane existing onto US Route 15 south and north. We believe the access road should have a dedicated left turn (south) lane such that vehicles turning right (north) will not have to be detained by vehicles turning left (south) on US Route 15.

o The left hand turn onto US Route 15 (south) needs to have a merge lane once the cars have reached the divided area separating US Route 15 north and south.

o The concern regarding traffic volume on the new access road is based upon elimination of the current left turn currently allowed when exiting Sheetz going south on US Route 15. This means that one of the busiest Sheetz in the Mid-Atlantic area will be exiting through the new access road. In addition, [owner] could see where certain traffic from the Shoppes at Haymarket and the Self Storage business could now use the access road when exiting the site to go both north and south on US Route 15.

o The current design when approaching [owner’s] property from north on US Route 15 has two right hand turns that are located within 75-100 feet of each other. [Owner] believes this will be very confusing to customers navigating to the property and this should be changed.

o [Owner] would like to understand both the signage and lighting plans such that the customers who are navigating to [tenant’s sites] have good directional signage to locate [owner’s] entrance.

o Lastly, the plans indicate that VDOT will require a construction easement on [owner’s] property and [owner] would like further detail on the impact to [owner’s] site.

VDOT Response: The project team will evaluate the addition of another entrance aligned with the drive aisle along the north side of the building. The entrance off of the access road to the

21  

rear of the building will be further reviewed and improved as necessary to allow tractor trailer access. The project team will further analyze the movement from the access road to northbound US Route 15; however, providing a refuge and merge area for vehicles exiting the access road to southbound US Route 15 is not feasible. Vehicles making this movement will have to select adequate gaps in traffic flow before proceeding through the intersection. The two entrances are required in order to provide access to two separate parcels – Parcel 002 is provided direct access to US Route 15, and the new Access Road provides access to Parcel 003 and Kapp Valley Way. The Access Road is located to improve traffic operations in the vicinity of the VA Route 55/US Route 15 intersection while providing safe access to the local businesses and Kapp Valley Way. Signage and lighting plans will be developed as the project design is advanced further. The temporary easement on Parcel 003 is required to allow for construction of the Access Road. A minimal amount of grading is needed along the property line which will likely require temporary removal of a portion of the fence along the property line in the northwest corner of the property. During the right of way acquisition phase of the project, the property owner will be contacted and all property impacts will be explained in detail as part of the acquisition process.

ConcernsRelatedtoParcel011(TheVillageatHeathcote) [Owner] requests that the final design retain access from Route 15 into [owner’s] property, as a right-in/right-out at the same location as the entrance approved with the site and infrastructure plan for this Property. A right turn lane and the Route 15 entrance were constructed, in part with funds contributed by [owner]. Subsequently, construction crews working for Prince William County removed this entrance without consulting [the owner]. Nonetheless, an entrance into the Property from Route 15 remains a part of the approved site plan associated with the Property. Kittleson & Associates prepared and submitted a memorandum, which substantiated our position that a safe entrance from Route 15 into the Property can be accommodated by the project’s design. Nonetheless, [the owner] understands that the project team met to discuss [the owner’s] request, without [the owner] despite [owner’s] request for a meeting, and that the consensus was that no entrance should be provided to the Property from Route 15. [Owner] understands VDOT and the project team’s concern with the entrance along Route 15 as a perception that there will be a conflict with the entrance onto the I-66 westbound ramp. [Owner] disagrees that an entrance along Route 15 will create a conflict with the I-66 westbound movement, certainly not if the entrance to the Property is restricted to a right-in only. [Owner] would accept a right-in only entrance as it would be better than no entrance at all. Additionally, what may not have been clear to the project team is that eliminating a point of ingress and egress along Route 15 will add more strain to the turning movements along

22  

Heathcote Boulevard. There are a total of 5,116 weekday daily trips that will be generated by the Property at full build-out, and it is estimated that 20% of these trips would utilize the Route 15 right-in/right-out entrance. On Heathcote, the Property has only one full access point, and the left turn movement from Heathcote into the Property will have to bear all of the trips that would have accessed the site from Route 15 southbound, which will further erode the function of that left turn movement. Additionally, if access onto Route 15 is eliminated, all trips will have to exit onto Heathcote, and all traffic ultimately headed southbound on Route 15 will have to use the right turn lane from Heathcote, which will further erode the function of that right turn movement. Traffic Engineers at Kittleson & Associates, Inc. believe that a turning movement into the Property from Route 15 can be designed in such a manner that allows the Property’s Route 15 entrance to function in a safe manner. If the proximity between Route 15 entrance and the I-66 ramp is of concern, the entrance can be moved closer to Heathcote Boulevard and still meet the intersection spacing requirements between the entrance and Heathcote Boulevard. However, [owner] recognizes that any design will require a design exception because the distance between the entrance and the I-66 ramp will still not meet the required distance of 750 feet. [Owner] is prepared to have its consultants design the Route 15 entrance, along with the turn lane, and to provide a traffic study that supports the application for a design exception. [Owner] is prepared to make a formal request to the project team that it submit a request to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (“CTB”) for the necessary change in the location of the limited access control that would allow a break at the Property’s proposed Route 15 entrance. [Another case cited]. However, before going through this exercise, [Owner] needs to know that VDOT and its design team will support our application, provided we substantiate that the entrance can be constructed in a safe manner and that the entrance will not degrade the function of the interchange, using the design year as the basis of the study. Therefore, [owner] request either a meeting or a teleconference with [VDOT] and those who would be involved in the review process to discuss wither what we are proposing is feasible. The alternative is for [the owner] to begin efforts on its just compensation claim, which will be substantial, arising out of the elimination of the Route 15 access and the re-design of the development necessitated by this change. VDOT Response: The Department staff has met with the owner/owner’s representatives and will continue to meet to discuss options with respect to the planned entrance along US Route 15 between Heathcote Boulevard and the northern crossover intersection of the DDI. VDOT will entertain the concept for a right in only entrance, if it can be designed to meet standards, be properly signed, and if it can be shown to not degrade the operations or safety of the DDI, all of which is contingent upon approval by the Federal Highway Administration and the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

23  

ConcernsRelatedtoValidityofInformationPresentedatthePublicInformationMeeting

There seems to be several “facts” in the “information” meeting handout which are false or misleading (per VDOT’s website at http://virginiadot.org/business/soq.asp), and could skew what the public thinks of the “benefit” of the DDI. Specifically, the following information should be corrected and the public re-informed of the correct information:

o The winning contractor submitted a bid of $36,193,933.00. There was a competing proposal which would have constructed the original, preferred interchange for $36,766,130.00. This is a difference of only $572,197.00 as opposed to the $16 million stated in the handout.

VDOT Response: The contractor’s bid is only a part of the overall project costs. While the Design-Build team’s bid for a DDI was only $572,197.00 lower than the competing bid, the overall costs associated with the DDI design concept are anticipated to present additional savings relative to right of way acquisitions, VDOT oversight, and long-term maintenance costs. The comparison made in the Public Information Meeting handout was to the last “published” overall cost estimate (at the time of the Public Hearing in March 2013), as was noted in the handout. The DDI requires fewer partial and total acquisitions than the previous alternative. This, in turn, results in lower project costs and reduced impacts to property owners. The cost estimate presented in the Public Information Meeting ($59M) reflects an overall savings of approximately $14M from the VDOT concept presented at the Public Hearing in March 2013. The estimate includes monies spent to date, as well as anticipated costs of final design, right of way (acquisition, relocation assistance, utility relocations) and construction (including costs by consultants, contractors and VDOT oversight). As the project progresses, the estimate will be further refined.

o There is no indication in the documents on the website that the awarded contractor has agreed to reduce the construction duration from 1250 days to 860 days. In fact, the information provided indicates that they will simply meet the contractually required completion date. How has the project duration been reduced by more than 1 year as stated in the handout?

VDOT Response: As the Design-Builder bid a different concept than the one presented at the Public Hearing in March 2013, it has the responsibility to complete a number of “non-construction” activities, including preparing a Supplemental Interchange Modification Report, perform additional Environmental Studies to assist in the preparation of the NEPA Document update, and conduct appropriate level of Public Involvement. These activities will consume time that otherwise would have been part of the construction schedule. The Design-Builder has assured VDOT that the time to construct will be reduced from VDOT’s originally anticipated 1,250 days (with the previous concept as presented at the Public Hearing in March 2013) to the approximate 860 days as reported in the October 2014 Public Information Meeting handouts.

o Discussions with the contractor at the “information” meeting indicated that landscaping is not part of their contract, yet much of the presentation and some of the information on the handout indicated landscaping would be provided and was

24  

more easily installed with the DDI concept. Is landscaping really being provided, and why is this more critical than actually moving traffic through the interchange?

VDOT Response: VDOT agreed to remove landscaping from the original Request for Proposals, as it was anticipated that it could be designed and installed by a separate contractor upon completion of the construction of the interchange (not that it would be eliminated entirely). VDOT has elected, however, to add landscaping back into the Design-Build Contract (via a change order), such that it can be designed consistently and simultaneously with the interchange configuration. US Route 15 is a Journey Through Hallowed Ground designated route, and through coordination with the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Trust, VDOT agreed to support landscaping consistent with the Trust’s palette of trees and plantings. The DDI will not provide as much available land for landscaping as the previous alternative, as the overall footprint of the project is smaller, but some of those areas will not be subject to shading that would have been created by the flyover ramp – so some of the plantings will have a better opportunity to thrive. Providing landscaping is not more critical than ensuring efficient traffic operations, yet they are not mutually exclusive either. VDOT’s goal is to provide both.

o Based on competing proposal available on VDOT’s website, it would seem that modifications to the original interchange were made to reduce the number of bridges from 4 to 3 and reduce the total take acquisition from 5 to 3 as well. These improvements contradict information provided in the handout which stated 4 bridges were required along with 5 total acquisitions to construct the original interchange. Why as a comparison not made between the DDI and the improved original concept as opposed to referring to old, outdated plans?

VDOT Response: Similar to the budget comparison made in the October 2014 Public Information Meeting handouts, it was VDOT’s intention to provide updates from information published for the Public Hearing in March 2013, as the public may not have been exposed to the designs proposed by other competitors. It is true that the competitor’s design concept would have required three bridges: a single bridge for northbound and southbound US Route 15 (rather than two separate bridges as is the case with the DDI), a bridge over Ramp A, and a two-span bridge conveying the flyover ramp over US Route 15. In review of the original concept as presented in the Public Hearing in March 2013, the previous VDOT concept would have also required only three bridges, not four as stated in the Public Information Meeting brochure (the same three bridges as presented in the competitor’s proposal, though in slightly different configuration). As for the right of way acquisitions, the original VDOT conceptual plans identified total acquisition of technically five parcels (yet shown on the right of way data sheet as six, because two adjacent parcels are tied together and owned by the same owners). The competitor’s proposal would have required the same total acquisitions (identified as parcels 010, 012, 013, 014, 016, and 017; parcels 012 and 013 are tied and should have been identified as one parcel). The DDI concept reduced the number of total acquisitions (no longer requiring a total take of Parcels 016 and 017). Alternate ingress/egress is also being evaluated for the parcels currently identified as total acquisitions.

25  

o The table states that a 2-lane ramp from southbound 15 to eastbound I-66 will be

provided, however, it appears that the second lane was significantly reduced from VDOT’s original concept. Why, and are there really two dedicated lanes on southbound US Route 15 which go to eastbound I-66? It appears there is only one, which is created on the bridge, while the second lane will also serve traffic that intends to continue south on US Route 15.

VDOT Response: The original VDOT concept had a single-lane flyover ramp, which merged with the single lane from northbound US Route 15 to eastbound I-66 (Ramp C) to become the two lane ramp. The current DDI design provides for left turns to be made from two lanes (one shared through/left lane and one left turn bay) from southbound US Route 15. Since this left turning movement is free-flowing, it does not require more dedicated turning lanes. Traffic modeling proves this design is adequate. These two lanes merge with the single lane from northbound US Route 15 to eastbound I-66, thus providing three lanes at the merge point (on Ramp C). The merge/transitions are supported by traffic analysis; however, the Design-Build Team will consider whether the second lane on the ramp can and should be extended.

o The “spur ramp” for Heathcote Boulevard, which is noted as a benefit of the DDI, could also be incorporated with the original design if this is a real concern.

VDOT Response: It is true that the spur ramp to Heathcote Boulevard westbound could have been incorporated into the previous concept; however, this was a unique element proposed by the Lane/RDA team to specifically address one of the shortcomings of the previous concept. In conjunction with the DDI, the spur ramp works even better than if it had been incorporated into the previous concept due to the two-phase signal at the crossover intersection, providing more green time to the spur ramp without taking necessary green time away from the mainline of US Route 15.

Based on all of the above, it seems that VDOT is making several concessions so that the DDI appears to “work” and meets the constraints of the area. Why are we forcing a DDI at this location as opposed to constructing an interchange that was accepted by all government entities and the public and was proven to work effectively?

VDOT Response: On the contrary, traffic Analysis and modeling indicate that the proposed DDI design, with its 2-phase signals at the two crossover points (signature element of DDIs) and number of lanes (through and auxiliary), will provide not only acceptable capacity and Levels of Service into the 2036 design year, but also enhanced safety. The only “concession” that VDOT made was to the design speed along US Route 15 between Heathcote Boulevard and the project’s southern limit (north of the railroad crossing). This was done in conjunction with the localities, in recognition of the urban characteristics of this area and to realize the many benefits of the DDI concept. Additionally, VDOT and the Design-Builder have sought the support from the government entities, elected officials and the public by having conducted several meetings (with Supervisor Candland, Delegate Marshall, Haymarket’s Town Council), and most recently by receiving input from the public at the Public Information Meeting.

26  

VDOT indicated that plans were being submitted for review the day after the meeting. How will comments and concerns from the public be incorporated if the plans are already being submitted for review? What is the process and timeline for approval of the revised environmental document and operational analysis that VDOT mentioned? I believe these documents are required to be approved before right-of-way approval and acquisitions can begin, but VDOT noted that these would start this winter? Please confirm that all environmental processes, operational analysis, and input from the public will be completed and incorporated before any approvals are provided to the contract.

VDOT Response: The Right of Way plans were submitted to VDOT on October 30th; these are by no means 100% completed plans. The comments received in response to the Public Information Meeting have been shared with the Design-Builder, who has assisted in the development of these responses and is evaluating opportunities to incorporate changes to the design to address some of the concerns presented. The revised environmental document and Supplemental Interchange Modification Report are currently under review in the Northern Virginia District Office, and once found acceptable will be submitted to Central Office and/or Federal Highway Administration. These processes are interrelated and are being carried out concurrently. Once completed, the revised environmental document will be made available for public review and comment. The Department will not authorize right of way acquisitions to begin until the other documents are approved and processes completed.

[Resident doesn’t] understand why a new interchange “concept” (one which was previously dismissed since it didn’t work) is being proposed for this location when a previous interchange configuration was accepted by all of the necessary public agencies and the community at large. Further, the original interchange will better serve the projected traffic volumes and has an easier ability to be expanded should traffic increase beyond what is expected. [Resident is] also concerned that a formal public “hearing” was not held, so that comments could be formally documented for the public record. Since the DDI had never gone through a formal public hearing before, the meeting format which was used to provide information to the public should have been more formal, ensuring that all comments received are accounted for, responded to, and incorporated into the project design. The DDI will not work at this location. Should it be built against all good judgment, [resident] hopes VDOT has the funds allocated to reconstruct the interchange in the near future (within 10 years) as opposed to waiting another 40 years to replace a soon to be worsened bottleneck.

VDOT Response: Among the eight build alternatives studied for this interchange, a Diverging Diamond Interchange configuration was initially considered. It had been eliminated from consideration based on the early criteria used for evaluation, since the geometry dictated by the previous 50 mph design speed could not work due to close proximity of the Heathcote Boulevard and VA Route 55 intersections. The Lane/RDA Design-Build team proposed an innovative design solution that differed from the early concept and was able to demonstrate both appropriate performance with the forecasted traffic volumes and reduced impacts. Because of the new concept, the team was required to effectively step back through several processes that were carried out by VDOT prior to the procurement of a Design-Build team, including updating the environmental document, preparing the Supplemental Interchange Modifications report (with

27  

detailed traffic analyses demonstrating equal or better operations than the previous Modified Diamond Interchange with Flyover Ramp concept), and conducting appropriate public involvement. The only difference between the October 29, 2014 Public Information Meeting and a Public Hearing is that a court reporter was not present to receive verbal comments. VDOT has provided the opportunity for the public to comment in writing, and, by evidence of this document, is responding to each comment received. The team is evaluating the comments and incorporating design revisions to accommodate some of the good suggestions provided.

Revise published comparison sheet that says previous alternative was “59 million” to actual price bid in design-build process. The comparison is apples to oranges currently.

VDOT Response: The comparison made in the Public Information Meeting brochure was to the published information provided at the Public Hearing in March 2013. It does not make reference to the bid offered by other Design-Build teams during the procurement process. Though it is true that the next higher bid was $572,197.00 higher, the bid alone does not account for the budget differences. The design concept presented by the bidder that was not selected would have resulted in greater costs relative to the right of way acquisitions, VDOT oversight, and long-term maintenance costs.

OtherComments

I feel that this plan will buy this region the most time before we are addressing congestion again. Thank you!

What difference does it make? Y’all gonna do it anyway. BUILD THE ORIGINAL INTERCHANGE CONEPT, WITH THE FLYOVER

RAMP!!!!!!

ConcernsRelatedtotheRailroadCrossingatUSRoute15

There are three interchanges here: I-66 & US 15, US 15 & VA 55, and US 15 & SRR (Railroad). This project only addresses one of them.

VDOT Response: The Interchange Reconstruction project does incorporate improvements to the intersection at US Route 15 and VA Route 55. It is true that the project does not incorporate a grade separated crossing of the railroad tracks, but another project is being considered by VDOT and the localities to address the intersection of US Route 15 and the railroad tracks.

How is “Free Flow” available when the railroad crossing is blocked for 10 minutes? VDOT Response: The Diverging Diamond Interchange permits free-flow left-turns onto the Interstate, but it does not make all other movements free-flow. As part of the interchange reconstruction project, improvements will be made at the Intersection of US Route 15 and VA Route 55 and special consideration will be given to allowing certain movements while the southbound traffic is stopped for the passage of trains (for instance, westbound through and

28  

right turning movements, eastbound left turning and through movements, and southbound left and right turning movements). This will help mitigate some of the delays caused by trains.

When will the railroad overpass be built? The interchange is great, but it will never work until you solve the issue of one lane (each

way) over the railroad tracks. [VDOT] missed the mark by defining the scope of the project too small. [VDOT] needs

to solve the whole problem. The railroad crossing on Route 15 near the Route 15 and Route 55 intersection causes

major backups. From the article, it does not appear that Route 15 will go over the railroad as it does I-66 or as Route 29 will go over the tracks at 29/Linton Hall/Route 55. Not doing this is a major oversight. Now is the time for this improvement, when all other disruption is taking place. On [resident’s] way home today, there was an issue with the train at the above mentioned intersection. Traffic backed up on Route 15 all the way to the intersection of Graduation Drive and Route 15. At other times, when the train goes through, it causes long backups on Route 15 going over those railroad tracks is only going to increase in the future. This is a place for foresight, not catch up.

If someone talks about [addresses] the railroad bottleneck, [resident] will support the project 100%.

Do the overpass over the railroad at the same time. Delay this project, if necessary. Don’t cause an 8 year construction period because of poor planning.

Please describe the plans to construct an overpass over the BNSF railroad “at grade” tracks on US 15 south of US 55. This project will need to be completed so as to allow for additional tracks if there is ever to be an expansion of the VRE to a terminal west of Haymarket. The areas to the west of Thoroughfare Road along I-66 in the Broad Run/Thoroughfare Gap area could provide the base for a transformative multi-modal mass transit hub that could provide access to VRE, park and ride, and express bus service that would contribute greatly to the relief of congestion, pollution, lost productivity and increased quality of life.

Please describe the plans for connectivity between the planned project at I-66 and US 15 and work that is currently underway at Villages of Piedmont to expand US 15 to two lanes north and southbound from south of the railroad tracks to the intersection with Thoroughfare Road. It makes no sense to improve and enhance US 15 from the railroad tracks to Heathcote Blvd and have no plans to rework the intersection with the railroad tracks. This will create a traffic disconnect and bottleneck between the VDOT project and the project that Villages of Piedmont will complete in 2016.

How do we turn a priority into a funded project to fix the RR crossing and below? VDOT Response to the above nine comments: Improvements at the railroad crossing on US Route 15 remain a priority for both VDOT and Prince William County; however, funding limitations exist. During the October 16, 2014 Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Public Hearing on the FY15-20 Six Year Improvement Program, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors (BOCS) listed the widening of US Route 15 (VA Route 55 to Route 29, including railroad overpass near VA Route 55) as one of their top ten priorities. The BOCS also approved the design of this project for near-term Northern Virginia Transportation Authority

29  

(NVTA) Regional funding. There will be a meeting on next year’s Six Year Improvement Plan in the spring of 2015.

Suggest using Steel Reinforced panels at the railroad track intersection. It would ease traffic as some drivers tend to come to a complete stop to cross the bumpy track intersection. [Resident] has seen the use of these steel panels in other cities and they seem very durable and would most likely reduce cost of repaving damaged and cracked asphalt around the tracks due to weight stress and extreme weather conditions. http://www.omnirail.com/products_rubber_steel.asp; http://www.omnirail.com/products_concrete_improved.asp

VDOT Response: Thank you for the suggestion. This will be presented to the railroad company, as it would require implementation by a party other than VDOT.

ConcernsRelatedtotheI‐66WideningProject

The construction and closing lately of Old Carolina bridge is increasing traffic on Fayette Street (south). The street is very winding and only 17’ wide on a blind curve at the top. PWC school buses are up and down the street to primarily access Haymarket ES. PWCS Transportation director informed [resident] VDOT would not allow a turn from Route 55 to Old Carolina and he had to route school buses down Fayette Street. A left into Haymarket Drive from Route 15 was also not an option (presumably because of lack of signal). [Resident] was told earlier the no turn onto Old Carolina was because the stop bar on northbound Old Carolina at Route 55 was too far forward. Consider a minimal cost “NO RIGHT TURN” on Fayette Street from Route 55 for late afternoon to evening and “NO LEFT TURN” from northbound Old Carolina onto Fayette Street at other times. Alternately, detour all traffic to Payne Street (there is no residential here) except local traffic – this is the best solution.

VDOT Response: VDOT is considering solutions to the safety concerns on Fayette Street and is willing to discuss options with the Town of Haymarket, Prince William County, and the School Bus Transportation staff. The County does have a “traffic calming” program through which speed humps may be possible. At present, restricting turning movements onto or off of Fayette Street is not advisable, as it does have better sight distance and available space for turning vehicles at its intersections with Washington Street and Old Carolina Road. It may not be possible to pull the stop bar further back on northbound Old Carolina Road. Unfortunately, school buses cannot be detoured to Payne Street as there is not adequate turning room for larger vehicles at either end of Payne Street. One possible improvement would involve adding sharp curve ahead warning signs (rather than curvy road ahead signs) and a double yellow line through the southernmost “S” curve, to alert motorists to stay on “their side of the road”. This would restrict on-street parking along the same stretch of roadway and the affected residents would have to agree to such a provision.

The loss of the bridge over I-66 at Jefferson Street has had a tremendous impact on the traffic flows in the Haymarket area. These impacts transcend any projections that could

30  

have been used to rationalize the timing of the closure. The ongoing construction in the center of Haymarket is very disruptive as is the continued mega project at Linton Hall. Vehicle traffic on US 29 and US 55 should have adequate warnings to avoid US 15 at I-66 for the duration of the coming construction project. Install prominent signage on US 29 north and southbound near the intersection with US 15 warning drivers away from US 15 at I-66. Install prominent signage on US 55 east of Haymarket before the intersection with Catharpin Road directing vehicles to detour to Heathcote Blvd. Install signage at the intersection of Catharpin Road and Heathcote Blvd. to access I-66.

VDOT Response: Until the next major traffic shift at the Linton Hall Road interchange (taking Linton Hall Road traffic onto the overpass and eliminating the at-grade signalized intersection) which is slated to take place in spring 2015, it would not be prudent to divert traffic to other roadways away from the Town of Haymarket and into other construction zones. The construction along Washington Street, a Town sponsored project, is now complete, which hopefully has improved traffic conditions along Washington Street. VDOT and its Design-Builder for the I-66 Widening Project will continue to monitor traffic operations that are affected by the closing of Old Carolina Road Bridge over I-66 and make adjustments to signing and signal timings to promote efficient and safe operations during these construction projects.                                                             i Diverging Diamond Interchange Performance Evaluation (I‐44 and Route 13).  Dr. Venkata Chilukuri, Smith Siromaskul, Michael Trueblood and Tom Ryan, HDR, Inc.  February 2011.  ii Diverging Diamond Interchanges: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.  Smith Siromaskul, HDR, Inc.  March 2012.