U.S. Route 220 Corridor Review.Indd

U.S. 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW -BOTETOURT COUNTY- Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission June 2008 Acknowledgements ROANOKE VALLEY AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) POLICY BOARD David Trinkle, Chair Billy Martin, Sr. Richard Flora, Vice Chair Joe McNamara Doug Adams J. Lee E. Osborne Richard Caywood Howard Packett Tony Cho Melinda Payne Unwanna Bellinger Dabney Tom Rotenberry Suzanne Lee Farmer Jackie Shuck Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Ron Smith William E. Holdren, Jr. Dave Wheeler METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Wayne G. Strickland PROJECT TEAM Matthew Rehnborg Jake Gilmer This report was prepared by the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Or- ganization (RVAMPO) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation (VDOT). The contents of this report refl ect the views of the staff of the Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO staff is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily refl ect the offi cial views or policies of the FHWA, VDOT, or RVARC. This report does not constitute a standard, specifi cation, or regulation. FHWA or VDOT acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfi llment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be nec- essary. 2 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: TRAFFIC INFORMATION....................................................................5 Overview.....................................................................................................................6 Vehicle Type and Traffi c Volume..........................................................................9 Accidents...................................................................................................................13 Bridge Conditions...................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT.....................................................17 Daleville....................................................................................................................18 Rural Botetourt County..........................................................................................19 Future Land Use.....................................................................................................21 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING........................................................23 Non-motorized Facilities........................................................................................24 Schools.....................................................................................................................25 Historic Resources...................................................................................................25 Endangered Species................................................................................................26 Water Resources......................................................................................................27 Wetlands..................................................................................................................29 TABLES Table 1- Road Characteristics..................................................................................8 Table 2- Current Traffi c Volumes.........................................................................10 Table 3- Projected Traffi c Volumes.......................................................................11 Table 4- Accident Data..........................................................................................13 Table 5- Bridge Conditions....................................................................................15 Table 6- Culvert Conditions...................................................................................15 MAPS Map 1- Traffi c Information....................................................................................12 Map 2- Current Zoning...........................................................................................20 Map 3- Southern Botetourt County Environmental Screening.......................31 Map 4- Northern Botetourt County Environmental Screening.......................32 4 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 TRAFFIC INFORMATION 1 US 220 IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE in connecti ng the localiti es of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Region. Within the region, it extends through Franklin County, Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke, Botetourt County, Clift on Forge, Covington, and Alleghany County. US 220 conti nues be- yond the region, from North Carolina all the way to the State of New York, with a total length of over 600 miles. The purpose of the US 220 Corridor Review is to collect data and informati on for Botetourt County and the Virginia Department of Trans- portati on (VDOT) to use in their planning process. It examines the Botetourt County porti on of US 220, from I-81 to the Alleghany County line. The informati on col- lected will be used in developing the Botetourt County Comprehen- sive Plan and ‘Purpose and Need” statements for VDOT projects along the corridor. Environmental screening data contained in the Review will also help VDOT identi fy issues early in the planning process that may need to be addressed under provisions of the Nati onal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Overview Botetourt County, Virginia’s highway transportation is served by three primary north-south routes. Two of these, Interstate 81 and U.S. Route 11, have close parallel routes that travel in a north-easterly di- rection from Roanoke County in the south to Rockbridge County in the north. The third, U.S. 220, also enters from Roanoke County in the south, at which point its route uses the I-81 corridor. Approximately three miles to the north of the Roanoke County border, at Exit 150, its route diverts from I-81 and travels north to Alleghany County. This corridor review will focus on U.S. 220 beginning at a southern point of I-81 Exit 150 and terminating at a northern point of the Alleghany County border. In addition to its importance as a transportation corridor within Botetourt County, this section of U.S. 220 is a popular link between I-64 at Clifton Forge, Virginia (approximately three miles north of the Alleghany/Botetourt border) and I-81. A brief description of the physical characteristics of the road is provided below. This data is summarized in Table 1. The sections presented in this document are unof- fi cial and have only been created for the purposes of this project. I-81 EXIT 150 TO ROUTE 779N Beginning at I-81 Exit 150 and traveling north, the initial 1.67 miles of U.S. 220 are classifi ed by the Federal Functional Classifi cation system as “Urban: Other Principle Arterial.” As its route diverts from I-81, the road has been given six lanes to accom- modate the traffi c that is merging from and exiting to I-81 at Exit 150. After less than .3 miles, however, the road is reduced to four lanes. The average lane width fl uctuates between 11 and 12 feet. The shoulders in this section have a gravel surface and a minimum width of 8 feet—with the exception of the initial six-lane portion, through which the shoulders have a width of six feet. The speed limit is 35 mph during the six lane portion and increases to 45 mph after the road decreases to four lanes. A depressed median is present throughout. There are two traffi c signals in this section. The fi rst is located at the intersection of U.S. 220 and Commons Parkway/ Wesley Road. The second is located at the intersec- U.S. 220 at Commons Parkway/Wesley Road tion with Route 779 North, otherwise known as Catawba Road. This inter- 6 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 section also marks the end of the section in which U.S. 220 has a functional classifi cation of “Urban: Other Principle Arterial.” ROUTE 779N TO FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA North of the Route 779N intersection, U.S. 220 is functionally classifi ed as “Other Principle Arterial.” It stays in this classifi cation for the remainder of the studied corridor. Over the next 6.57 miles, the road continues as a four lane highway with a depressed median. Again, the average lane width fl uctuates between 11 and 12 feet. The shoulders have a gravel surface and a typical width of 6 to 10 feet. It should be noted, however, that about one-third of this section of the road has a shoulder width of 2 to 4 feet. The speed limit is 55 mph throughout. There are no traffi c signals in this section or any of the remaining sections along the studied corridor. FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA At the end of the second section, U.S. 220 enters the town of Fincastle. While in the town’s lim- its, the road is a four lane, undivided highway with curb and gutter shoulders. The average lane width in this section is 12 feet. The speed limit is decreased to 45 mph. Entering Fincastle, Virginia from the south FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA TO STATE ROUTE 43Y After the road leaves the town of Fincastle, it again becomes a four-lane divided highway with a depressed median. It remains this way for the next 11.2 miles. The average lane width again fl uctuates between 11 and 12 feet.

Load more