1 / 11

Mark Center (BRAC 133) Long Term Improvement

This report assesses two alternatives for improving access to the Mark Center: Alternative F and Alternative G. Alternative F facilitates HOV/bus access without needing rotary reconstruction, resulting in lower costs and a quicker completion timeline. However, it introduces a signalized intersection. Alternative G offers more direct access but requires significant rotary reconstruction, leading to higher costs and an extended project timeline. The NEPA process for both alternatives is discussed, emphasizing environmental impacts and public review procedures. Recommendations include focusing on Alternative F and supporting the Categorical Exclusion approach.

sezja
Télécharger la présentation

Mark Center (BRAC 133) Long Term Improvement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mark Center (BRAC 133) Long Term Improvement Tom Fahrney, VDOT Commonwealth BRAC Coordinator February 12, 2011 Alexandria, VA

  2. Alternative F

  3. Alternative G

  4. Alternative F • Pros • Provides HOV/Bus access to Mark Center • Does not require reconstruction of rotary (lower costs) • Maintains Seminary Road through traffic third-level flyover • Shorter project completion schedule • Within existing VDOT Right-of-Way • Cons • Introduces signalized intersection on third-level flyover

  5. Alternative G • Pros • Provides more direct HOV/Bus access to Mark Center • Cons • Requires total reconstruction of rotary (significant cost increase) • All through traffic must go through rotary requiring significant expansion of the rotary • Requires gates to control reversible operation on Seminary Road • Prohibiting HOV eastbound access from ramp may encourage U-turn movements on Seminary Road • Extends project completion approximately 18 months or more • Significant Maintenance of Traffic issues during construction

  6. NEPA Process • Categorical Exclusion (CE) • No significant environmental impacts • Not required to identify alternatives • Requires air quality and noise study • Can utilize city’s established public information process • 6-8 month process

  7. NEPA Process • Environmental Assessment (EA) • Environmental impacts not clearly established • Requires a reasonable number of alternatives • Requires air quality and noise study • Requires formal public review • 12-14 month process

  8. Alternative F Schedule

  9. Alternative G Schedule

  10. Recommendations • Eliminate request to study Alternative G • Support Categorical Exclusion (CE) • Allow VDOT to utilize city’s established public information process

  11. Alternative F Study Area

More Related