New bypass numbers controversial

It’s not unusual for project costs to change.

It’s highly unusual for there to be accusations that officials deliberately withheld the higher figures.

Yes, the U.S. 29 Western Bypass has once again lit the match to controversy. Officially, the bypass is estimated to cost $244.6 million. Unofficially, costs could be as high as $436 million.

And the fact that the second set of figures weren’t made available to decision makers before the latest round of pro-bypass votes is raising suspicions from critics who claim information was deliberately manipulated in order to obtain support for the new road.

But not so fast.

The discrepancy lies partly in the fact that the higher figure assumes a deluxe version of the bypass.

The official figure accepted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Commonwealth Transportation Board is based on a more basic version of the bypass.

That’s not a manipulation of data, that’s a difference of opinion over project criteria.

The Virginia Department of Transportation’s Culpeper District estimated a project cost of $244.6 million, based on a road that would be constructed at less-than-interstate standards.

However, at VDOT’s central office, staff thought the costs would be higher. At first, VDOT HQ thought the new bypass would cost $273 million — partly because VDOT assumed construction of an interstate-quality highway and because the road would have to be pushed through some tough terrain.

 A second evaluation escalated costs to $436 million, chiefly because VDOT thought the costs of removing much of Stillhouse Mountain, which lies in the bypass’ path, would be even higher than first estimated and because costs of a new bridge and signage also would be higher.

If the road and bridge are built to interstate standards, then more soil and rock would have to be moved, more concrete would have to be poured and signage would have to meet higher standards.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board was not given the benefit of considering the new estimates.

But as VDOT Commissioner Gregory T. Whirley points out, the later estimates were based on a possible “overbuild” scenario. If the bypass isn’t built to interstate standards, then those costs will drop. VDOT HQ’s assumption of interstate-quality construction was just that — an assumption.

But … not so fast. Even that’s not the whole story.

VDOT HQ, as it turns out, might be justified in assuming that an interstate-type construction, and the related bid process, would be more suitable than the version of the bypass officially being considered. A state engineer wrote that building the bypass in the manner now anticipated (“single phase, low-bid design build contract”) has caused problems in the past for other projects, including construction delays and cost overruns.

It is legitimate to question whether interstate-type construction might be better for the bypass. It is legitimate to question whether the CTB ought to have been given the benefit of both sets of figures, and the rationales behind them, before the board made a decision.

But the discrepancy in the figures can be explained as the result of a difference of opinion over design, not necessarily as a deliberate withholding of facts.