TDOT presents I‑40/I‑75 corridor PEL study; public meetings scheduled in November

Christie Brown, region 1 director of preconstruction at the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), and consultants from HNTB and STV gave an update Oct. 14 on the I‑40/I‑75 corridor Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study and announced public meetings in November.

Brown said the corridor study is “a very significant project for both the region and the state” and introduced program management consultant Eric Seggers of HNTB and lead study consultant Brad Thompson of STV. Seggers described the PEL as a planning-to‑NEPA approach that TDOT is using to evaluate corridor‑level improvements and accelerate future project delivery. “This is the first PEL process that TDOT’s actually following,” he said.

Brad Thompson summarized the study phases: Phase 1 (initiation and methodology), Phase 2 (identifying a full range of preliminary alternatives without preconceptions), Phase 3 (fatal‑flaw screening and development of a reasonable alternative set), and a final alternative evaluation that yields recommended PEL alternatives that can move into NEPA and preliminary engineering. He said most early work has focused on traffic analysis, traffic volume development and a baseline conditions report that includes crash history, environmental baselines and congestion mapping.

Staff said the study area covers about 17 miles of mainline I‑40/I‑75 from the split to State Route 640 and that the PEL will look at mainline improvements, work already in TDOT’s 10‑year plan (including Campbell Station and work on Pellissippi Parkway), potential relocation of the weigh station, operational improvements and longer‑term options such as an I‑75 bypass.

Staff announced three in‑person public meetings and a virtual option the week of Nov. 10 (meetings on Nov. 10, Nov. 12 and Nov. 13) with identical materials and an online survey. Seggers said the PEL framework and methodology, baseline conditions report and a draft purpose and need were in review with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and that the study includes multiple formal coordination points with FHWA to allow planning work to feed directly into subsequent NEPA analyses.

Consultants noted the corridor had more than 5,000 crashes in the last three years in the baseline crash map shown to committee members. They said the study will include traffic modeling, origin‑destination analysis and traffic and revenue calibration where applicable (for example, to evaluate “choice lanes” or tolled options). Thompson said the team is also re‑examining prior bypass studies and will consider all viable alternatives: “we don't want to come in with any blinders on. We're coming in eyes wide open.”

During committee discussion, Catherine Baldwin (Anderson County) asked about the termini and footprint of a proposed I‑75 bypass. TDOT and consultants said they have not yet defined exact termini and are using traffic modeling and demand analyses to evaluate whether a bypass would divert substantial through traffic and where it would connect to I‑75.

Speakers representing Oak Ridge and surrounding communities urged strong consideration of bypass and corridor alternatives, saying previous studies that would have routed a bypass to the south had been dropped and that local roads now carry traffic volumes and heavy vehicles they say were never intended for those streets. Staff noted TDOT is analyzing traffic, right‑of‑way costs and feasibility; consultants emphasized that the PEL will document benefits and constraints to inform later NEPA and engineering phases.

Presenters also highlighted corridor alternatives already funded or on TDOT’s programming lists: staff noted Edgemoor Road improvements split into two segments with a combined budget shown in the TIP materials of approximately $375,000,000 as a locally significant investment and asked the consultants to consider Pellissippi Parkway and other routes within the broader study area.

Public meetings are planned before Thanksgiving to present baseline findings and gather public input; staff said boards and short prerecorded presentations will be available at each in‑person meeting and an online survey will collect trip purposes, origin‑destination information and public priorities. The PEL study timeline includes FHWA coordination points (CP1–CP5) tied to methodology, purpose and need, screening and final PEL approval.

No formal committee action was taken; staff sought committee feedback and invited local input ahead of the November public meetings.