We Need a Comprehensive Upgrade of 301 – Not a Band-Aid Bypass!

On June 20^th, the citizens of Charles County learned the Tri County Council of Southern Maryland has named the Waldorf Bypass a top priority. Specifically, the Council’s FY 2008 “Regional Transportation Needs Inventory” identifies two “Top Regional Priorities”. The first is “Western Bypass of Waldorf (U.S. 301 Waldorf Area Transportation Improvements). Construct a western Bypass of Waldorf, with controlled access. Construct a Limited Upgrade of U.S. 301 in Waldorf area to facilitate traffic flow and relieve congestion at failing intersections.”

Prior to the Council action the Charles County Board of Commissioners, on May 9^th established County transportation priorities calling for the construction of the western Waldorf bypass and pursue limited upgrade of the most congested U.S. 301 intersections. The limited upgrade was identified in the presentation as Alternate 1A which provides for some overpasses at congested intersections in Waldorf. The Commissioners approved these priorities by a vote of 4 to 1. Commissioner Collins opposed establishing the priorities pending completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) now being prepared by the U.S. 301 Waldorf area interagency study group.

It is important to note that in 1993 a letter from SHA advised our Commissioners that no overpasses will be considered in Waldorf until such time as a bypass is an impossibility.

In order to receive Federal highway funding an agreed, approved Environmental Impact Statement is required. This study must examine all alternatives and recommend the alternative which satisfies the purpose and needs of the project with the least impact on the environment and wetlands of U.S. waters, unless there are overriding social and economic considerations. The stated purpose and need of the current study is to “Improve local traffic operation along U.S. 301 in the Waldorf area, and facilitate the safe and efficient flow of through traffic and commuter traffic between the Waldorf area and the Washington metropolitan area….”

Unfortunately, this insistence on a western Waldorf bypass by the Commissioners is nothing new. In 1998 – 2001, the State Highway Administration (SHA) and the Federal and Maryland cooperating agencies prepared a Preliminary Draft Environmental Statement addressing U.S. 301 in the Waldorf area. This statement was not circulated for final approval and a DEIS was never presented to the public for comment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commented that if a bypass was recommended they would consider giving the document and adverse rating and recommend that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) deny a Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit. EPA has responsibility for rating the DEIS and the COE must issue a 404 permit to allow work in wetlands. The COE initially commented that an upgrade was the only acceptable alternative; however, they later advised that a western bypass was the most environmentally damaging alternative, an eastern bypass may be permitable, and they were willing to further study the eastern bypass. Subsequently, in 2001 at a public meeting between SHA and the Charles County Board of Commissioners, the President of the Board advised SHA, we will not go east and we will not go through Waldorf. SHA advised that there was no point in further study, and progress on the DEIS ended. Later, in March 2002, the Board approved a Transportation Network Strategy calling for a western Waldorf bypass citing the need to minimize impacts on businesses.

The State has budgeted five million dollars for a new study and the Interagency Group held their first meeting on the current study in January 2006, with public workshops held in March this year. The next step, now underway, is the selection of alternatives to be included in the DEIS. The alternatives in the new study are essentially the same as those in the previously discarded study, and all of the alternatives end in the vicinity of the Turkey Hill Road/U.S. 301 intersection, moving the traffic congestion to La Plata. What has not been seen in either study is an upgrade alternative in Waldorf using urban highway design, minimizing impact on the businesses.

We are concerned that once again our tax monies will be spent preparing a study which will never be completed because our Board insists on a western bypass of Waldorf. If our aim is the relief of traffic congestion, the study should be allowed to proceed, recommending the preferred solution satisfying the approved purpose and need. If our Board once again will accept only a western bypass of Waldorf, then we are concerned that once again Waldorf will receive no significant highway improvements and traffic congestion will continue to grow worse.

The Charles County Board of Commissioners needs to respond to two questions!

1) Why are they insisting on the “most environmentally damaging alternative”?

2) Why have they not insisted that SHA develop a U.S. 301 upgrade through Waldorf, based upon urban design with underground storm drainage minimizing the impact on the business community?

----Ernie Wallace