October 6, 2016 Amended March 2, 2017
Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This plan was prepared in cooperation with the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. This report also represents the collective work of state, regional and local representatives of the Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RRTPO) 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Advisory Committee.
DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the analysis of the RRTPO as part of the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC) which is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), or the Board of the RRPDC. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The FHWA, FTA, VDRPT, or VDOT acceptance of this report as evidence of the fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement or approval of the need of any recommended improve- ments nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be necessary. As each of these projects in the MTP is implemented, coordination, agreement, and independent approval of the participating local jurisdiction is required. No part of this MTP is to be interpreted as to diminish the authority of local jurisdictions in the area of land use and transportation improvements.
NONDISCRIMINATION The RRTPO fully complies with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regula- tions in all programs and activities. The RRTPO will strive to provide reasonable accommodations and services for persons who require special assistance to participate in this public involvement opportunity. For more information on meeting accessibility, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see www.richmondregional.org or call the Title VI Coordinator at 804-323-2033.
NO DISCRIMINACIÓN Aviso de Título VI abreviado al publicó: El Organización de Planeación Regional de Transporte de Richmond (RRTPO) cumple con el Título VI de la Ley de los Derechos Civiles de 1964 y con los estatutos y regulaciones relacionadas en todos los programas y actividades. RRTPO se esforzara en proveer acomodaciones razonables y servicios para personas que requieran asistencia especial para participar en esta oportunidad pública. Para más información sobre accesibilidad a la reunión o para obtener los documentos de reclamación del Título VI, entre a la página web (www.richmondregional.org) o llame al Coordinador del Título VI en 804-323-2033.
2 Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization Policy Board The Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) is the federal and state designated regional transportation planning organization that serves as the forum for cooperative transportation decision-making in the Richmond area. The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission is the contracting agent and staff for the Richmond Regional TPO. Voting Members Non-Voting Members Town of Ashland Powhatan County Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee Kathy Abbott Larry J. Nordvig David Jamison James Foley (A) Carson L. Tucker (A) Robert P. Morris (A) Charles City County City of Richmond Elderly and Disability Advisory Committee Floyd H. Miles, Sr. Parker C. Agelasto Brian Montgomery William G. Coada (A) Jonathan Baliles Chris M. Lloyd (A) Chesterfield County Kathy C. Graziano Federal Highway Administration Michelle R. Mosby Steve A. Elswick (FY17 Chairman) Ivan Rucker Chris A. Hilbert (A) James M. Holland Cynthia Newbille (A) Federal Transit Administration Christopher Winslow Ellen F. Robertson (A) Ryan Long Leslie Haley (A) Reva M. Trammell (A) RideFinders, Inc. Goochland County Capital Region Airport Commission Von S. Tisdale Manuel Alvarez, Jr. John B. Rutledge Cherika Ruffin (A) Susan F. Lascolette Jon E. Mathiasen (A) Ned Creasey (A) Virginia Department of Aviation GRTC Transit System P. Clifford Burnette, Jr. Hanover County David Green W. Canova Peterson, IV (FY16 Chairman) Virginia Department of Rail and Public Garland W. Williams (A) Angela C. Kelly-Wiecek Transportation Wayne T. Hazzard (A) Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority Jitender Ramchandani Nick Britton (A) Henrico County Angela L. Gray Patricia S. O’Bannon Secretary of Transportation Designee Frank J. Thornton Robert H. Cary Thomas Branin (A) Mark E. Riblett (A) New Kent County C. Thomas Tiller, Jr. Patricia A. Paige Thomas W. Evelyn (A) (A) - Alternate W. R. Davis, Jr. (A)
2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Advisory Committee Established by the RRTPO Policy Board on January 29, 2015.
Town of Ashland New Kent County CRAC Nora Amos Kelli Le Duc John Rutledge Garet Prior (A) Powhatan County Jon Mathiasen (A) Charles City County J. March Altman GRTC Transit Rachel Chieppa Ed Howland (A) Garland Williams Chesterfield County City of Richmond Clinton Edwards (A) Barbara Smith Amy Inman RMTA Brent Epps (A) Travis Bridewell (A) Theresa Simmons Goochland County CTAC Representatives DRPT Tom Coleman (Chairman) Thomas Fletcher Nick Britton Debbie Byrd (A) Robert Morris (Vice Chairman) VDOT Champe Burnley Hanover County Mark Riblett Roy Bryant Joe Vidunas Ron Svejkovsky (A) Walter Johnson (A) J. Michael Flagg (A) (A) - Alternate EDAC Representatives Henrico County Brian Montgomery E. Todd Eure Chris Lloyd Rosemary Deemer (A) Sid del Cardayre (A) 3 4 October 6, 2016 Amended March 2, 2017
Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization
5 6 plan 2040 table of contents
7 Executive Summary
20 Part 1: plan 2040 Summary
168 Part 2: plan 2040 Technical Document
7 8 Executive Summary
The 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (plan2040) is a regional, multi- modal transportation planning document that typically has a 20-year horizon and is updated on a five year cycle based on air quality conformity standards. plan2040 takes into account future needs for roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit, freight and passenger rail, ports and marine facilities, and air travel. This document was formerly known as the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) before federal legislation changed the name. plan2040 is produced by the Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RRTPO), a regional policy-making organization made up of partner agencies and elected officials from nine member jurisdictions including the counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, New Kent and Powhatan, the City of Richmond and Town of Ashland.
Planning Process
The long-range planning process utilized by the RRTPO is guided by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act legislation signed on December 4, 2015 and its predecessor, the Moving America towards Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. The FAST Act provides long-term funding certainty for surface transportation and largely maintains current program structures and funding shares between highway and transit as established in MAP-21. The FAST Act continues the requirement of “continuing, cooperative, and compre- hensive” transportation decision making (known as the “3C” planning process). The process takes into account member jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans, which are used to inform the 2012/2040 RRTPO Socioeconomic Data developed for plan2040, and the impacts of transportation decisions on the region as a whole. These decisions involve allocating transportation resources by the most cost-effec- tive and efficient means possible, giving appropriate consideration to federal and state planning and programming regulations. The performance-based planning process established in MAP-21 also focuses on the inclusion of performance measures and development of a system performance report.
9 Public Participation RRTPO study area are examined lines for population and house- by Transportation Analysis hold growth. The RRTPO’s process for Zones (TAZs). The 2012/2040 conducting the plan2040 update RRTPO Socioeconomic Data The total employment growth is included the formation of an was created with the cooperation projected at 43% with suburban MTP Advisory Committee, to of localities and partner agencies, and rural employment growth provide guidance to RRTPO providing data for the base year projected to continue at a higher staff, and additional public partic- 2012 data and informing devel- rate than urban growth as a ipation through citizen input. opment scenarios for 2040 data result of westward development Representatives were included projections. The Socioeconomic into rural jurisdictions. Henrico from each member jurisdiction Data is used for creating popu- County is projected to remain as well as from existing RRTPO lation forecasts and in previous the largest employer in the advisory committees and local, plans, for air quality conformity Richmond region, with a total state, and federal transportation analysis. of 255,266 total jobs by 2040 or agencies. 35% of all regional employment. According to the Socioeconomic Input provided by the Capital Data, the total population in The Title VI/Environmental Region Collaborative’s (CRC) the Richmond region is fore- Justice section identifies disad- “Strawman” effort was used to casted to grow by 42%, reaching vantaged population groups guide the early development of a total of approximately 1.5 and analysis of regional trans- the plan2040 update, followed million residents. The largest portation investments in areas by an initial series of presenta- gains in population are projected with concentrations of these tions at meetings throughout the in Henrico (132,000) and groups to reduce dispropor- Richmond region to raise aware- Chesterfield (187,000) Counties tional impacts of transportation ness of plan2040. A survey on and out of the more rural areas, projects. The special populations the nine Goals of plan2040 was Hanover County (65,000). The and Environmental Justice developed for public input, and number of automobiles in the Areas were identified using the updates and relevant information region is forecast to increase by demographic index provided by were shared through social media 53.7%, driven largely by rapid the Environmental Protection platforms and the plan2040 population growth in suburban Agency (EPA). The popula- website. areas. tion groups include Minorities, Low-Income, and Zero Car [To be completed after formal Around 80% of the region’s households. public review of draft MTP population lives in the City of document is completed] Richmond and the Counties Land Use and Environmental Regional Demographics of Henrico and Chesterfield, forming the urban core and Mitigation The Richmond region is a vibrant suburban ring of the region. These and diverse area experiencing jurisdictions are also projected As the Richmond region rapid growth that is expected to hold 66% of the new house- continues to grow, it becomes to continue for the foreseeable holds in 2040. The total number more critical that prudent land of automobiles is expected to use and traffic infrastructure Executive Summary Executive future. To anticipate future trans- portation needs, population and increase by almost 50%, totaling decisions are made that consider employment densities within the over 370,000 between 2012 and the impact on the natural envi- 10 2040, and following similar trend ronment. Like many American urbanized areas, the region is potential environmental impacts a larger role in transportation expected to experience much are included in the Land Use infrastructure needs. of its population growth over and Environmental Mitigation the next two decades in areas section of the Technical FHWA classifies roadways outside the existing urban core Document. utilizing a federal roadway func- based on the 2012/2040 RRTPO tional classification system. This Socioeconomic Data. Potential environmental mitiga- classification system is based on a tion activities may include: road’s capacity and design param- A review of existing land use in • Avoiding adverse impacts as eters and determines, to a large the Richmond region reveals a a result of construction or degree, the source of federal funds implementation of a project different pattern of development which can be used for projects on in the more rural, rapidly devel- • Minimizing a proposed activity/ that roadway. Roads are classi- oping jurisdictions as compared project size or its involvement fied as either, interstate, other to the urban core. While the freeway and expressway, other • Rectifying impacts (restoring more urban areas have typically temporary impacts) such as principal arterial, minor arterial, grown along major arterials such noise or light impacts by only major collector, minor collector, as Broad Street or Midlothian working during acceptable and local. These classifications are Turnpike, rural counties are hours as an example in order from highest mobility to approaching growth differently • Precautionary and/or greatest access. Interstates offer by designating “development abatement measures to reduce the highest mobility as they centers” in their comprehensive construction impacts provide for the movement of land use plans. This change in high volumes of traffic between • Employing special features development patterns comes or operational management distant points while local roads from a desire to preserve rural measures to reduce impacts provide the greatest access to areas, an attempt to curb traffic individual parcels, whether, resi- congestion before it becomes an • Compensating for dential or commercial properties. environmental impacts by issue, or the need to limit water, providing suitable replacement The RRTPO is charged under sewer and electrical infrastruc- or substitute environmental ture investment. resources of equivalent or 23 CFR 450 with providing a greater value, on or off-site regional forum through which Transportation projects, espe- the member localities and cially the construction of new agencies decide how to allocate facilities, have the potential to Regional Road Network limited Federal highway funds. negatively impact the natural Road maintenance accounts for The primary focus of transporta- and human environment. a large portion of the transpor- tion in the Richmond region is While plan2040 is not required tation dollars spent in the region. the local road network. Because to address project-level envi- According to VDOT’s 2015 of heavy reliance on this network, ronmental impacts due to the “State of the Pavement” report, road construction and improve- separate environmental review the Richmond Construction ment make up a significant that is conducted prior to the District includes more lane portion of the plan2040 list of construction of each project, mileage to be maintained (18,769 projects. As the region moves it is still appropriate and lane miles) than any other toward greater diversity in trans- Summary Executive necessary to discuss ways to Construction District in the portation modes and options, mitigate environmental effects state. For the interstate system roadways will continue to play at a regional level. Details on that runs through counties in 11 the region, approximately 48% system in the U.S, providing a in cooperation with the RRTPO of the lane miles are designated viable transportation alternative and GRTC, is developing the deficient. first to the horse and buggy and plan using current transit and then to the automobile. The demographic data, land use data The Richmond Regional Bridge streetcar system was replaced with and plans, transit and population and Culvert Inventory and a limited bus system that is today forecasts, public opinion surveys, Structural Assessment Report, run by the GRTC Transit System and stakeholder input to create updated in 2015, provide an (GRTC). GRTC is co-owned a guide for transit development inventory of all structures in the by the City of Richmond and in the Richmond region through region and identify structures Chesterfield County and offers 2040. The plan is scheduled with poor conditions. These service primarily within the City, to be completed by early fall poor conditions are classified as with limited service to Henrico 2016 and the recommendations structurally deficient, function- County and an express route to from the plan will be used to ally obsolete, and weight posted Petersburg. inform plan2045 or the 2045 as examples. The following facts Metropolitan Transportation provide a brief summary of the GRTC provides paratransit Plan. report: services for disabled and low-in- • Total Number of Structures: come residents within a ¾ mile 1,412 Transportation Demand of the fixed-route service areas Management • Total Number of Bridges: 815 in the City and Henrico County. Access Chesterfield provides Transportation Demand • Total Number of Culverts: 597 paratransit service in Chesterfield Management (TDM) is a set of County, and a number of private • Total Number of Structurally planning processes, strategies, Deficient Bridges: 110 paratransit companies also and policies designed to relieve help to provide transportation congestion, influence travel • Total Number of Functionally alternatives to the region’s disad- demand, improve efficiencies of Obsolete Bridges: 185 vantaged population. the transportation network and • Total Number of Deficient redistribute demand in space Currently, transit in the Bridges: 295 or time. The benefits of TDM Richmond region is limited include cost effective alternatives • Median Age of Structures: 30 to regular-route and express to increasing highway capacity years bus service; however, GRTC and coordinated efforts delivering is currently pursuing bus rapid • Number of Structures Eligible better environmental outcomes, transit service, titled the Pulse, for Federal Bridge Replacement improved public health benefits, Funds: 77 along the Broad Street corridor and higher quality of life. from Willow Lawn in Henrico • Number of Structures County to Rocketts Landing in Eligible for Federal Bridge The RRTPO serves as the Rehabilitation Funds: 171 the City of Richmond. Richmond region’s lead agency responsible for developing TDM The Greater RVA Transit processes, strategies, and policies Vision Plan is a long-term Regional Transit and coordinating and partnering vision document for transit in
Executive Summary Executive with provider entities that From 1888 to 1949, the City the greater Richmond area. The implement TDM strategies and of Richmond operated the first Virginia Department of Rail and activities. TDM policies, plans successful electric streetcar Public Transportation (DRPT), 12 and programs supported by the and walking as a viable option for transportation network. Virginia TPO include: commuting. also provides planning assistance • Intelligent Transportation to state and local transportation Systems (ITS) The following should beplanners, supports various bicycle considered when planning trans- committees, and promotes • Congestion Management portation facilities to make sure Process (CMP) Planning bicycle and pedestrian education that bicycling and pedestrian and safety. • Transit and Fare Incentives connections are considered as part of the transportation In 2011, VDOT released the • Carpool and Vanpooling solution: State Bicycle Policy Plan estab- • Include bicycle/pedestrian • Freight Diversion (I-64 Express) lishing a vision for the future of links to improve connectivity bicycling in the Commonwealth when planning for • Flexible Work Hours and transportation projects and to advance the CTB’s Teleworking policy on bicycle and pedestrian • Identify high concentrations • Active Transportation: Bicycle planning, aimed to advance the of people and trip generators and Pedestrian Connections bicycle element of the 2004 such as residential areas and key trip attractors to invest CTB Policy “consistently, appro- • Park and Ride Investments resources for improving priately, and cost effectively.” existing infrastructure into • Parking Supply The State Pedestrian Policy Plan appropriate facilities followed as a companion plan in • Other TDM Strategies for • Provide connectivity to transit 2014. Each plan has its own goals Alternative Transportation service but maintains the same four core elements that outline each plan’s • Engage private sector entities more specific recommendations. Bicycle and Pedestrian such as developers or Facilities employers for collaboration Core Elements of Policy Plans and support of bicycle and Element 1: Clarify Policies with Biking and walking as daily trans- pedestrian facilities regard to bicycle/pedestrian portation modes are increasing • Develop marketing and accommodations in the Richmond region as new education strategies for public facilities are constructed. These engagement and outreach Element 2: Provide staff training modes are tradionally considered and guidance to integrate the recreational activities, but are The foundation set by the Policy requirements in projects becoming more integrated as a Commonwealth began in 2004, and programs transportation alternative to the when the Commonwealth car as the costs of our express- Element 3: Improve outreach Transportation Board (CTB) and coordination ways continues to rise and as adopted a Policy for Integrating more people become aware of Bicycle and Pedestrian Element 4: Measure and evaluate the health and environmental Accommodations (called simply progress benefits associated with these two Policy), formally requiring the Bicycle Policy Plan Goals transportation modes. Dedicated consideration of bicycle and Goal 1: To increase the use of facilities providing multimodal pedestrian accommodations in bicycling in Virginia to include Summary Executive connectivity in addition to first the planning, funding, design, a full and diverse range of the and last mile connections on construction, maintenance, population for all trip purposes existing roadways create biking and operation of Virginia’s 13 Goal 2: To improve safety and The 2008 Passenger Raillarge units optimizing use of comfort of bicyclists throughout Investment and Improvement specialized intermodal handling Virginia and to reduce bicycle Act (PRIIA) directed the equipment to effect high-speed crashes Federal Railroad Administration cargo transfer between ships, Pedestrian Policy Plan Goals (FRA) to, “Develop a long-range barges, railcars, aircraft and truck national rail plan… to promote an chassis. The Richmond region Goal 1: Improve the safety integrated, cohesive, efficient, and is fortunate in that it has good and comfort of pedestrians optimized national rail system connections to different modes throughout Virginia and reduce for the movement of goods and of transportation and enjoys pedestrian related crashes people.” This plan recognizes the close proximity to major East Goal 2: Enhance mobility and role rail can play in helping to deal Coast ports and large popula- accessibility for pedestrians with the rapid growth expected tion centers. Richmond has also over the next several decades in historically provided a major Goal 3: Achieve a more connected already crowded urban areas. The shipping route to bring products pedestrian network in Virginia plan identifies the need for both and raw materials to markets Goal 4: Better promote and improved freight service as well along the Eastern Seaboard educate planners, designers, as passenger service, including and to world markets across the advocates, and stakeholders on the expansion of high-speed rail. Atlantic. the requirements of the CTB In 2013, Virginia’s Department CSX and Norfolk Southern Policy for Integrating Bicycle of Rail and Public Transportation currently both provide freight and Pedestrian Accommodations (DRPT) completed its most rail in the region, complimented Goal 5: Improve avail- recent rail plan. The Statewide by the Old Buckingham Branch able guidance on pedestrian Rail Plan provides the vision and line carrying primarily coal. Acca accommodations strategies to address rail needs Yard serves as the largest rail yard in the Commonwealth. The plan in the region. also outlines the current condi- Rail in the Richmond The Richmond Marine Terminal Region tion of Virginia’s rail system, challenges facing the system, (RMT), an important inland port facility on the James River, Rail in the Richmond region and identifies projects necessary provides the capability to link provides critical links for the for improvement of the network. with international markets and movement of people and goods, A companion document, the the global economy. The port creating an efficient, cost effective Resource Allocation plan, details also offers significant logistical and environmentally beneficial project selection and prioritiza- advantages enjoying relatively transportation mode choice for tion, funding and implementation low roadway congestion and an residents and businesses. The schedules with an estimated $6.9 excellent location along I-95 region is traversed by several key billion in projects included in the with easy access to I-64, I-85, rail corridors and is shaped not Statewide Rail Plan. I-295 and US 460 and Foreign only by federal and state policy, Trade Zone #207. but also by CSX and Norfolk Freight and Intermodal Southern, Virginia’s Class I Four airports (Richmond
Executive Summary Executive Intermodal transportation railroads, and limited short line International Airport, enables cargo and/or goods to be railroads. Chesterfield County Airport, consolidated into economically Hanover County Municipal 14 Airport, and New Kent County When funding for the CVUASI and development patterns. With Airport) serve the Richmond was cut, the CVUAWG technological advancements region. Only Richmond committed to continuing under a becoming more integrated into International Airport provides voluntary coalition of emergency vehicles and modal choice, lower scheduled commercial airline management and public safety transportation costs, emissions service and major air cargo professionals with a dedicated reductions, safety improvements, operations. The other airports staff position hosted by the and more efficient and reliable support general aviation activi- RRPDC. The CVEMA includes vehicles are some of the many ties of various levels. local, state, federal, private sector benefits to system users. and non-profit representatives The Central Virginia with participants from multiple In looking forward to 2040, it is Emergency Management disciplines, including public difficult to anticipate the rate of Alliance safety, emergency management, growth for transportation tech- fire/EMS, transportation, public nologies and its impact on the The security of a region and works, social services, health regional transportation system well-being of its residents are districts, and others. Major work for the existing system and in the of paramount importance to its tasks for the CVEMA include future. Intelligent Transportation continued economic, environ- Virginia’s Secure Commonwealth Systems (ITS) and emerging mental and social health. The Initiative Strategic Plan, transportation technologies will Central Virginia Emergency Virginia Critical Infrastructure be researched and accounted for Management Alliance Protection and Resiliency as they appear in future years and (CVEMA) originated with the Strategic Plan, and other items updates. Examples in addition Central Virginia Urban Areas as part of the State’s Emergency to alternative fuels and electric Security Initiative (CVUASI), Management Program. These vehicles include autonomous and a Department of Homeland plans and program efforts assist connected vehicles, transporta- Security (DHS) program focused in informing the RRTPO tion network companies (TNCs) on enhancing regional prepared- Unified Planning Work Program like Uber and Lyft, road sensor ness in major metropolitan areas. (UPWP) as staff provides tech- technology, telecommuting and Formed in 2008, it includes nical assistance as needed. e-commerce. 20 localities in and around the Travel Demand Richmond region, all represented Transportation in the Central Virginia Urban Innovations Forecasting Area Work Group (CVUAWG). As part of plan2040, the RRTPO The CVUAWG serves as the The introduction of technology in conjunction with VDOT governing body for the CVUASI into transportation has become utilized a travel demand model to and meets monthly to develop a major factor in how people model road and transit networks projects to enhance regional travel in the Richmond region. and determine net effect of the preparedness, share informa- The introduction of alternative transportation projects as identi- tion, discuss regional projects, fuels and alternative fuel vehicles fied in the Fiscally Constrained allocate UASI funds, and track and alternative transportation Plan. The travel demand model is the progress of projects already modes, such as biking or walking,
also used as a tool to determine the Summary Executive underway. alleviated the strain on existing resources to accommodate the emissions that will be generated by vehicles at different points in region’s transportation network 15 the life of the plan but due to the optimization of existing infra- An assessment of traffic conges- changes in the RRTPO desig- structure, and increased mobility. tion in the Richmond region nation to an attainment area, air reveals a road network that quality conformity analysis is not Many forms of ITS are currently is operating with short-lived required. being used in the Richmond pockets of congestion at peak region. They include elec- travel times. The low-density The RRTPO hired an on-call tronic tolling, traffic cameras, development patterns of the consultant to assist in devel- and variable message signs on region and low transit density oping the regional travel demand highways, computerized traffic may result in lower levels of model for further integration signal systems, emergency vehicle service and operations on local into its UPWP. A function added pre-emption devices on major roadways in future years. The to the model will be a deficiency roadways and automatic vehicle network for analysis in the CMP analysis and updates to the 2040 location and electronic fare boxes includes 21 major roadways. model network in preparation on the transit system. for plan2045 and a scenario The performance measures iden- planning/visioning process. Congestion tified and tracked in the CMP The RRTPO hosted a Scenario Management Process include means of transportation Planning Peer Exchange to work, travel time to work in Workshop on November 19-20, The Congestion Management minutes, distance to jobs, daily 2014 with FHWA sponsoring Process (CMP) is required for VMT, and annual hours of delay. under its Scenario Planning transportation management area A separate technical document Program to gather staff from peer (TMA) MPOs with populations is developed for the CMP and MPOs and exchange experiences over 200,000. The CMP is a provides further detail on the with scenario planning, all to systematic and regionally-ac- performance of the region’s develop an approach for scenario cepted approach for managing transportation network. planning as part of the plan2045 congestion that provides accurate update. and current information on trans- Fiscally Constrained portation system performance Plan Intelligent and assess alternative strategies Transportation Systems for congestion management In accordance with federal regu- that meet state and local needs. lations, plan2040 is produced as Intelligent Transportation It assesses the level of roadway a fiscally-constrained plan with Systems (ITS) is the integration congestion in the Richmond all funding sources forecasted to of a broad range of information region and proposes methods to be available over the life of the communications and control either alleviate the congestion or plan. The funding levels were technologies in to the transpor- to maintain current conditions if determined through allocation tation system. The use of these they are acceptable. The region is guidelines for each project type technologies improves the safety, designated by EPA as an attain- within four time bands, divided efficiency, and performance of ment area but should it move into between 2016 and 2040. The the system. ITS technologies non-attainment for air quality in allocation guidelines are taken provide accurate, real-time travel future plans, the CMP is required into consideration during the
Executive Summary Executive information for trip planning to consider alternatives and miti- selection of projects and the and offer other benefits such gation measures for any roadway final “constrained list” of projects as congestion reduction, projects that increase capacity. must not exceed the available 16 funding. The fiscally constrained Working with revenue forecasts and benefits of transportation plan displays the reality of trans- from VDOT (October 2015), projects on disadvantaged popu- portation funding limitations the 20-year annual forecast was lation groups to ensure that areas as fewer transportation dollars aggregated into four time bands with high concentrations of were available for plan2040 in by fiscal year (FY) to simplify the these populations receive at least comparison to previous long funding process: FY 2016-2021, a proportional level of transpor- range plans. plan2040 is a long- FY 2022-2027, FY 2028-2033 tation dollar investment and are range planning document and and FY 2034-2040. The FY 16-21 not disproportionately affected given the variables associated time band represents projects by any negative impacts of the with producing accurate 20-year included in the RRTPO TIP and projects. The special popula- revenue forecasts, allowed more VDOT’s Six Year Improvement tions and Environmental Justice fiscal latitude than shorter-range, Program (SYIP). Taking these Areas were identified using the programming oriented docu- projects into account, $2.2 billion demographic index provided by ments such as the four-year was available for funding new the Environmental Protection Transportation Improvement projects in the remaining time Agency (EPA). The groups Program (TIP). bands. include Minorities, Low-Income, and Zero Car households. The RRTPO utilized the project The ranked projects were ranking and selection process assigned to time bands based The Richmond region has 40% from plan2035 as the baseline on local project priority and Minority population, 12% for the plan2040 long range project cost. A further constraint Low-Income population, and plan. With guidance from the is that certain types of projects 7% Zero Car households out of 2040 MTP AC, the plan2035 were only eligible for certain the total population. The highest process was updated and a set of fund sources (Interstate, bridge, concentrations of Minority project ranking criteria based on etc.). The MTP AC funded as populations occur in the City of the nine Goals of plan2040 was many projects as possible while Richmond and Henrico County developed. This action created a still leaving a reserve for future and the majority of predomi- direct link between the selection project additions through plan nantly Low-Income population of projects and the plan2040 amendments. Eighty-seven new areas are located within the City Goals, which were developed candidate projects are funded, of Richmond. There are also through comparisons of common with 5 projects remaining several overlapping areas where themes or topics from the federal unfunded. Low-Income areas are also planning factors, statewide predominantly Minority areas. transportation plans, MPO Environmental Justice performance measures, and the Zero Car households are a 2031 LRTP. Federal regulations dictate that new disadvantaged popula- plan2040 address the impact tion group, identified as part Executive Summary Executive
17 of the Title VI/Environmental early planning stages) to perform Justice analysis, who are transit an adequate project-level envi- dependent. Through overlaying ronmental analysis. Environmental Justice Areas and Zero Car household concen- Regional Transportation tration areas, 77% of Zero Car and Land Use household concentration areas Performance Measures were found in concentrated areas for Low-Income and Minority During the Virginia General populations, indicating that Assembly legislative session concentrated areas of low auto in 2009, a new state legisla- ownership are almost all within tive requirement was enacted the predominantly disadvan- to ensure that MPOs within taged population areas. he urbanized areas of over 200,000 disadvantaged population areas persons develop and implement were mapped along with new regional performance measures. candidate projects to determine As mentioned previously, the areas of overlap. The total cost TPO performance measures of projects outside of these areas were used in the project selection was compared to the total cost process to weight project scores. of projects inside areas of high The RRTPO performance concentrations of disadvantaged measures include multiple populations. metrics for the following catego- The spatial analysis of trans- ries: congestion reduction, safety, portation investments, as transit usage, HOV usage, jobs- identified in the plan2040 to-housing ratio, job and housing Fiscally Constrained Plan, per access to transit, job and housing capita found that approximately access to pedestrian facilities, 42% of transportation projects air quality, movement of freight fell entirely or partially within and daily vehicle miles travelled defined EJ areas. (VMT) per capita. Rather than specific targets, most measures plan2040 does not directly assess instead include desired upward the impact of individual projects or downward trends. The 2015 on disadvantaged populations. annual report redesigned the The National Environmental format of the report and added Policy Act (NEPA) requires future measures and connections that each project undergo envi- to the RRTPO UPWP to the ronmental analysis prior to current performance measures. construction, typically performed by the agency or locality managing the project. The TPO
Executive Summary Executive does not possess the requisite expertise or specific project information (many projects in 18 this page intentionally left blank Executive Summary Executive
19 Part 1: plan 2040 Summary Table of Contents
21 Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Development Process
33 Public Participation and Outreach
41 Performance Measures
47 Goals
55 Fiscally Constrained Plan Revenue Projections and Allocation Guidelines .... 59 Project Ranking and Selection Process ...... 61 Constrained Project List and Location Maps ...... 73
103 Environmental Justice Analysis
114 Appendix A: Frequently Used Terms ...... 116 B: plan2040 Project Evaluations Tool - Methodology Report ...... 123 C: plan2040 Survey Results ...... 155
20 RRTPO Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Development Process
The RRTPO is a policy-making organization made up of local elected officials from each of the region’s nine member jurisdictions and state and federal transportation agencies, area transportation service/system operators. The RRPDC serves as lead staff providing administrative and technical services for the RRTPO. In addition, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) provide additional technical support.
The RRTPO serves as the forum for cooperative regional transportation decision-making. The RRTPO is required to carry out metropolitan transportation planning in cooperation with the state and transit providers. The RRTPO develops the region’s transportation plans and programs, and approves plan2040, which is a prerequisite for the allocation of federal-aid highway and transit funds. The development of an efficient and effective multimodal transportation network is essential for the region if it is to sustain a strong economy, clean environment, and high quality of life standards.
MPOs are designated under Section 134 of Title 23, U.S. Code, for maintaining and conducting a “continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive” (3-C) regional transportation process that results in plans and programs consistent with adopted plans for development of the metropolitan area. Census defined urbanized areas of 50,000 or greater in population are designated as MPOs. The Governor, with the concurrence of area local governments, is charged with designating the MPO’s member organizations. The RRTPO is designated as a Transportation Management Area (TMA), defined as a metropolitan area with a population of over 200,000, creating additional requirements for transportation planning such as the Congestion Management Process (CMP).
21 In 2014, the Richmond MPO Member Jurisdictions Partner agencies that hold one changed their name within and Partner Agencies vote include the Capital Region the Richmond region to Airport Commission, GRTC be the Richmond Regional The following jurisdictions are Transit System, Richmond Transportation Planning voting members of the RRTPO Metropolitan Transportation Organization (RRTPO) to with the number of votes indi- Authority (RMTA), and VDOT. clarify the organization’s focus cated in parenthesis: Non-voting members represent • Charles City County (1) on transportation planning. • Chesterfield County (4) other RRTPO committees and Like many metropolitan areas, • Goochland County (2) partner agencies including: the RRTPO encompasses • Hanover County (3) • CTAC several jurisdictions, each with • Henrico County (4) • EDAC • New Kent County (2) • FHWA their own comprehensive plans • Powhatan County (2) • FTA and transportation programs. • City of Richmond (4) • TPO Chairman’s Citizen In Virginia, planning district • Town of Ashland (1) Appointees (2) commissions, which are estab- • RideFinders • DRPT lished under state code to • Virginia Department of conduct regional planning, Aviation serve as TPO staff for most of Virginia’s urbanized areas. RRTPO
map 1.1. richmond tpo study area boundary 22 TPO Study Area plan2040 Development Process Under federal requirements, the Federal and State Legislation study area for the RRTPO must encompass both the existing urbanized area and contiguous During the development of area expected to become urban- plan2040, two different trans- ized during the time period portation acts were signed into covered by plan2040 (for this law, requiring adaptations to document the horizon year is regulations related to metro- 2040). It must also cover areas politan transportation planning designated by the Environmental and MPOs. On July 6, 2012, the Protection Agency (EPA) under President signed into law the FAST Act as the first in over ten the Clean Air Act as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in years that provides long-term non-attainment/maintenance the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act funding certainty for surface area for air quality standards legislation. MAP-21 was the first transportation. The FAST Act (currently designated as an long-term highway authoriza- made no significant changes to attainment area for ozone air tion enacted since 2005, funding the performance-based planning quality standards). To ensure surface transportation programs and programming policy require- that the plan covers all urbanized at over $105 billion for fiscal ments in MAP-21. Notable areas, air quality attainment areas, years 2013 and 2014. It created provisions include: and areas expected to become performance-based planning and • Improving the resilience and urbanized by 2040, the study area programming with a multimodal reliability of the transportation has been defined to include: approach to address improving system as part of the scope of the planning process • Hanover County safety, maintaining the condi- • Henrico County • Inclusion of intermodal • Town of Ashland tion of infrastructure, reducing facilities that support intercity • City of Richmond traffic congestion, improving transportation, including • A portion of Charles City system efficiency and freight intercity buses and intercity County movement, preserving environ- bus facilities, as part of the • A portion of Goochland County metropolitan and statewide • A portion of New Kent County mental resources, and reducing planning process. This • A portion of Powhatan County delay in project delivery. The additional content is part of • A majority of Chesterfield requirements for a long-range the statewide transportation County plan and short-term transpor- plan and transportation tation improvement program improvement program The portion of Chesterfield continued from previous legisla- tion and added the incorporation • Clarifying the role of private County not included in the providers of transportation RRTPO is contained in the of performance plans, perfor- Tri-Cities MPO study area. mance measures and targets, • Requiring State DOTs to This includes those areas of and monitoring progress toward incorporate performance performance targets. measures of a transit agency Chesterfield County near not represented by a MPO into Hopewell, Colonial Heights, and its long range transportation On December 4, 2015, the Petersburg. The RRTPO 2040 plan whether if it is in an urban President signed into law study area and designated urban- or rural area
the Fixing America’s Surface RRTPO ized area boundaries are shown Transportation Act (FAST in the map. Act). USDOT identifies the 23 • Changing language to “shall” • The Highway Trust Fund be considered in both metro- regarding the inclusion of (HTF) is the source of funding performance measures for most of the programs politan and statewide planning and a system performance in the FAST Act. The HTF is processes. Consultation require- report in a State’s long-range composed of the Highway ments for states and TPOs are transportation Account, which funds highway also expanded. Requirements are and intermodal programs, and • Requiring the consideration the Mass Transit Account. added for plans to address envi- of public ports and freight Federal motor fuel taxes are ronmental mitigation, improved shippers in long-range the major source of income performance, multimodal transportation plans for the HTF. The FAST Act capacity, and enhancement activ- authorizes specific dollar amounts for each program, and ities; tribal, bicycle, pedestrian, To support performance-based each year Congress provides and disabled interests are also to planning, new provisions for an annual appropriation which be represented. data collection and manage- funds the programs specified Metropolitan Planning in Act. ment under various data analysis The policy for the metropolitan activities, such as travel demand • FAST Act funding for transit is planning process is to promote model data and vehicle probe administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) consistency between transpor- data, received $10 million per which helps communities tation improvements and state year in funding. support public transportation and local planned growth and by issuing grants to eligible The FAST Act addresses the recipients for planning, economic development patterns. many challenges facing our vehicle purchases, facility The transportation improvement transportation system today – construction, operations, and program (TIP) is to be updated at challenges such as improving other purposes. least every four years. The long- safety, reducing traffic conges- • Federal law regulates not only range transportation plan and tion, improving efficiency in the imposition of the taxes, the TIP are to remain separate freight movement, increasing but also their deposit into and documents. intermodal connectivity, and expenditure from the HTF. Statewide Transportation Authority to expend from the protecting the environment – as HTF for programs under the Planning well as laying the groundwork Act and previous authorization The statewide planning process for addressing future challenges. acts to [insert date]. After is to be coordinated with metro- The FAST Act promotes more this date, expenditures may be made only to liquidate politan planning and statewide efficient and effective Federal obligations made before that trade and economic development surface transportation programs date. planning activities. The statewide by focusing on transportation plan should include measures issues of national significance, The FAST Act provided for the to ensure the preservation and while giving State and local continuation of metropolitan most efficient use of the existing transportation decision makers and statewide transportation system. The state transportation more flexibility for solving planning processes, with changes improvement program (STIP) is transportation problems in their made in the planning process for to be updated at least every four communities. surface transportation. Some of years. these changes added flexibility and efficiency, while others Funding from the FAST added new consultation and Act generally flows from the RRTPO environmental planning require- federal government to the ments. Safety and security are Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth then determines 24 identified as separate items to how the federal apportionments • Improve the resiliency and • Plan must contain: operational reliability of the transportation and management strategies will be allocated to each of its system and reduce or mitigate to improve the performance metropolitan areas and other stormwater impacts of surface of existing transportation areas of the state. transportation; and facilities; investment and other strategies that provide for The FAST Act requires that ten • Enhance travel and tourism multimodal capacity increases planning factors be considered based on regional priorities and needs; and proposed in the development and update In the project ranking process transportation and transit of regional transportation plans. utilized by the RRTPO for the enhancement activities These factors are addressed in plan2040 update, the federal plan2040 and are as follows: • A Congestion Management planning factors plus consistency Process is required in • Support the economic vitality Transportation Management of the metropolitan area, with statewide transportation Areas (TMAs) or urbanized especially by enabling global plans and local comprehensive areas larger than 200,000 competitiveness, productivity, land use plans act as the initial people and efficiency; criteria for candidate project • The planning process in TMAs • Increase the safety of the ranking and selection. requires joint FHWA/FTA transportation system for certification motorized and non-motorized Significant Provisions of users; the FAST Act • TPOs are encouraged to consult or coordinate with • Increase the security of the Significant FAST Act provisions planning officials responsible transportation system for for other types of planning motorized and non-motorized for the TPO planning process activities affected by users; include: transportation, including • Local officials, in cooperation planned growth, economic • Increase accessibility and with the state and transit development, environmental mobility of people and freight; operators, are responsible protection, airport operations, for determining the best and freight movement • Protect and enhance the transportation investments environment, promote energy to meet metropolitan • The metropolitan planning conservation, improve the transportation needs process is to promote quality of life, and promote consistency between consistency between • TPOs are responsible for transportation improvements transportation improvements adopting the metropolitan and state and local planned and State and local planned transportation plan (MTP); the growth and economic growth and economic Governor and TPO approve the development patterns development patterns; transportation improvement program (TIP) • Enhance the integration and connectivity of the • The Plan and TIP remain Significant FAST Act provisions transportation system, across separate documents for plan2040 include: and between modes, for people • Updated every 5 years (unless and freight; • Requirements for a 20-year the TPO chooses to do so more planning perspective, air frequently) in non-attainment • Promote efficient system quality conformity, fiscal and maintenance areas. management and operation; constraint, environmental Attainment areas are updated justice, and public involvement on a five-year cycle. • Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation • Intermodal connectors are
system; considered as transportation RRTPO facilities.
25 • Potential environmental mitigation activities along with potential sites to carry out the activities are included and developed in consultation with federal, state, land management, and regulatory agencies.
• Transit operators are included in the cooperative development of funding estimates for the financial plan section.
• TPOs are required to consult with state and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation fig. 1.1. RRTPO Board Meeting concerning development of the plan. of consistent and constant eval- The participation of local elected uation criteria. In particular, officials on the TPO and tech- • Representatives of users of pedestrian walkways, bicycle this means that transportation nical staff on the TPO and its transportation facilities and decision-making is “continuing, various committees allows the the disabled are included as cooperative, and comprehensive” member jurisdictions to consider parties that participate in the (also known as the “3C” planning the implications of transporta- planning process. process). tion decision-making at both • Public meetings are to be the local and regional level. The conducted at convenient The RRTPO carries out the “3C” process is “cooperative” because and accessible locations planning process in numerous all member jurisdictions partic- at convenient times and ways, but especially through ipate and all decisions are made are to employ visualization a continuous and regularly techniques to describe plans, collectively to best serve the and public information is scheduled series of meetings Richmond region. The process is to be made available in an for both the TPO and its also “comprehensive” in that the electronically accessible standing committees including format, such as on the web. decisions made by the RRTPO the Citizens Transportation are based on: Advisory Committee (CTAC), Each jurisdiction’s RRTPO Planning and Elderly and Disability Advisory comprehensive plan Programming Process Committee (EDAC), and Technical Advisory Committee Consideration of impacts and In compliance with the FAST (TAC). In addition, special implications that decisions Act, the RRTPO has devel- purpose committees, sub-com- will have on the entire region oped a transportation planning mittees and work groups are and programming process that established as needed and may An improvement program ensures all transportation plans, include representatives from the designed to consider the RRTPO projects, and programs requiring TPO member organizations and region’s various multimodal federal approval or using federal various groups and organizations transportation needs and from throughout the region. allocate available resources 26 funds are reviewed on the basis by the most cost-effective issues such as environmental transportation and socio-eco- and concerns, privately funded nomic data, forecasting future efficient means possible while transportation projects, freight conditions and needs, identifying giving appropriate services, transit services, and proposed projects which are consideration to federal and strategies to increase efficiency, evaluated and ranked, evaluating state planning and safety and security. Groups financing, evaluating distribution programming regulations and advocates for each of these of benefits/burdens, ensuring issues are part of the develop- conformity with the State The transportation planning and ment process and the RRTPO Implementation Plan (SIP) for programming process for the has responded by developing a ozone air quality standards, and RRTPO provides a framework Metropolitan Transportation selecting a preferred alternative if for guiding the development of Plan Advisory Committee required. The RRTPO’s current transportation plans and projects (MTP AC) that is comprised EPA designation as an attain- that are federally funded within of transportation professionals, ment area allows for submission the Richmond area. The four citizens, elderly, disabled and low for information purposes to the key elements of the transporta- income consumers and repre- Governor, FHWA, and FTA. tion planning and programming sentatives, and transportation The plan2040 update process as process are: demand management advocates. conducted is illustrated in the • The implementation of a figure on the next page. process which considers the First introduced in earlier ten planning factors set forth in legislation, and then refined in FAST Act the FAST Act, is the need to • The implementation of a financially constrain the plan process that integrates a and meet air quality conformity citizen participation program goals. As the MTP AC makes providing full access to the decisions on projects, plans, and process and equal opportunity for citizen input during all priorities, financial constraint phases of the planning and air quality conformity are process. two primary motivating factors in plan project selection and recom- • The implementation of a process that encourages mendations. The RRTPO and participation of operators of VDOT are responsible for devel- major modes of transportation, oping a collaborative process, private transportation including public outreach and providers, and other interested parties to ensure all RRTPO Board involvement for transportation perspectives updating the prioritization of and modes are represented transportation projects and strat- egies contained in plan2040. • Conformity of the transportation plan with the Regulations concerning the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment of air metropolitan planning process quality goals requirements are contained in Title 23, Parts 450 and 500,
and Title 49, Part 613 of the RRTPO The RRTPO planning process Code of Federal Regulations. includes the responsibility to The process includes updating bring in participants to address 27 RRTPO
fig. 1.2. RRTPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update Process 28 Environmental Justice employment, and transportation telecommunications devices for patterns of low-income and the deaf (TDD), and modified The purpose of environmental minority populations; identify work schedules or other changes justice is to avoid, minimize the distributions of benefits and that would allow that person or mitigate disproportionately burdens of the transportation to fulfill his or her job duties. high and adverse human health system on these populations; and Employers with 25 or more or environmental effects on low evaluate and improve the public employees were required to income and minority popu- involvement process to eliminate comply with this law by July 26, lations; to ensure full and fair participation barriers and engage 1992 and private businesses with participation of low income and minority and low-income popu- 15 to 24 employees by July 1994. minority populations; and to lations in transportation decision Title II – Public Services prevent the denial of benefits to making. those same populations. In the past, minority and low-income Americans with All services, programs, and activi- populations have been identified Disabilities Act ties provided by public entities or as the largest disenfranchised their agents are prohibited from group, both in terms of equal The Americans with Disabilities discriminating against persons access to transportation supply Act (ADA) was enacted into law with disabilities. In general, if a and citizen input. Environmental on July 6, 1990. The purpose of person with disabilities can use justice seeks to ensure equal this civil rights legislation is “to the public transportation system, access to transportation systems provide a clear and comprehen- then the public entity may not and to the transportation sive national mandate for the deny the individual with disabili- planning process for everyone elimination of discrimination ties the opportunity to use public regardless of race, color, creed, or against individuals with disabil- transportation. In addition, it national origin. Limited English ities.” It is the national goal of prohibits public entities from proficiency (LEP) populations ADA to assure that persons providing services that discrim- are also included as part of the with disabilities have equality inate against individuals with environmental justice analysis of opportunity, have a chance disabilities. Specific require- as a group unto itself due to the to fully participate in society, ments include the following: rapidly rising numbers of this • New or leased vehicles for fixed are able to live independently, route service and demand population in the region. and be economically self-suffi- responsive service must be cient. Implementing ADA in accessible (unless equivalent The environmental justice regu- the Richmond transportation service is provided to persons latory framework started with with disabilities) sector is discussed later in this Title VI of the Civil Rights document. There are five Titles Act of 1964 and was reinforced • Public entities, which provide in the Act summarized below. fixed route service, must also by the National Environmental Title I – Employment provide comparable paratransit Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, service the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, Executive Order Discrimination against qual- • Remanufactured vehicles (structural changes) must be 12898 of 1994, and U.S. DOT ified persons with disabilities accessible Order on Environmental Justice is prohibited in all aspects of (DOT Order 5610.2) of 1997. employment. Reasonable
Under these requirements each accommodations must be made RRTPO TPO receiving federal funds is in regard to job site accessibility, expected to identify residential, communication devices such as 29 • New facilities must be Title V – Miscellaneous comprehensive revision of the accessible and alterations to Provisions transit facilities must include 1977 CAAA. It imposed major accessible features challenges for the metropolitan Every public entity operating transportation planning and • Rail systems must include programming process in the a key station plan and be fixed route transit (except for accessible commuter bus, commuter rail, or nation’s designated non-attain- intercity rail services) is required ment and maintenance areas. • Rapid and light rail systems to submit a plan which includes The Clean Air Act’s primary must have at least one goals are the attainment and accessible car per train an implementation schedule with annual updates detailing maintenance of the National Title III – Public how paratransit services will be Ambient Air Quality Standards Accommodations and implemented and will be in full (NAAQS), and the prevention Services Operated by Private ADA compliance. There is a of significant deterioration of air Entities full public participation process quality in areas cleaner than the throughout the entire planning NAAQS. The NAAQS establish process. the maximum pollutant concen- Public accommodations must be trations that are allowed in the accessible to persons with disabil- The following six criteria have outside ambient air. ities even if they are owned by the been developed to define “compa- private sector. Access must be rable paratransit service”: EPA requires that each state provided in such public places as • Operate in the same service submit a State Implementation theaters, hotels, stores, and public areas as the fixed route system. Plan (SIP), including any laws transit stations. Transportation and regulations necessary to • Response time that is provided for the public by private comparable to the fixed route enforce the plan that outlines entities must also be accessible. system. how pollutant concentrations will Title IV – Telecommunications be reduced to levels at or below Relay Services • Fares may not be more than the standards. This achievement two and a half times the fare of the fixed route system. is referred to as “attainment.” Once pollution levels fall below Telephone companies must • Hours and days of paratransit the standards, the state must also provide telecommunication service must be comparable to show how it plans to keep these relay devices for those persons that of the fixed route service. levels at the reduced amounts, with hearing or speech impair- • Trip purpose may not be referred to as “maintenance.” ments. A TDD is a machine prioritized. The CAAA requires transpor- that employs graphic commu- tation plans and programs to nication in the transmission of • Service availability may not be conform to the SIP for each coded signals through a wire or limited because of capacity constraints. applicable air quality standard. radio communication system. A The air quality plans quantify person with disabilities can use pollution reduction needs and a TDD to call the operator who The Clean Air Act commit to reduction strategies also has a TDD and communi- Amendments through the SIP, transportation cates through a third party. control measures (TCMs), and The Clean Air Act Amendments conformity provisions for trans-
RRTPO (CAAA) were signed into law portation planning. on November 15, 1990. The 1990 CAAA provided for a 30 The EPA has defined NAAQS established by EPA in October including DEQ and VDOT’s for six criteria pollutants, 2015. Environmental Department. including ground level ozone, carbon monoxide, and particu- The current designation of an late matter. Any area that fails to attainment area has removed the meet these standards by a certain requirement of the air quality deadline can be reclassified to a conformity analysis of the Fiscally higher-level designation with Constrained Plan, which involves additional and more stringent a public review and running the compliance requirements. Constrained Projects List in the Richmond/Tri-Cities Regional The only NAAQS that the Travel Demand Model for Richmond region in recent years adverse impacts. The conformity is ozone. Ozone is formed when analysis also includes collabora- its precursor emissions - volatile tion with other partner agencies organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) - react in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone or smog. VOCs are organic emis- sions that originate from mobile sources such as cars, trucks, and buses; stationary sources such as power plants, oil refineries, and chemical manufacturers; and area sources such as lawn mowers, gas stations, and farm equipment, which are individually insignifi- cant but have a large cumulative impact. Further information on the Clean Air Act and NAAQS history is in the Land Use and Environmental Mitigation section of the document. EPA Region III responded on December 9, 2011 that it intended to designate the Richmond area as “unclassifiable/ attainment” and EPA published final designations in the summer of 2012. The current design value for the three-year period from
2013-2015 in the Richmond RRTPO area, according to DEQ, is 0.063, which is below the 0.07 standard map 1.2. richmond/tri-cities Air Quality Maintenance Area 31 32 Public Participation and Outreach
“Each Transportation Planning Organization shall provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan.” (Title VI of FAST ACT Section 134 (i)(5)(a))
Strengthened in the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST Act), public participation in the MPO planning process is an integral part of regional transportation plans.
This chapter provides a summary of the public participation and outreach process used during the plan2040 update. It is necessary to establish a free exchange of information and allow for public input at all stages of the planning process. In order for the public input process to be effective, it must be proactive; it must provide complete information to the public; there must be timely public notices to ensure the public’s awareness of the opportunities; the public must be allowed to provide input toward decisions; the process must begin early and be continuing; and the process must involve a broad cross-section of the public.
33 MTP Advisory Committee Each MTP AC meeting had plan2040 website is nested within an open comment period at the the RRPDC main website. The primary mechanism for beginning of the meeting. on-going public input to Public Outreach plan2040 is through the TPO’s A website (http://www.rich- Metropolitan Transportation mondregional.org/plan2040) Outreach for plan2040 was Plan Advisory Committee (MTP was developed for the plan2040 undertaken in two efforts, AC). The MTP AC is composed of update which included informa- starting with initial presenta- voting members from the TPO’s tion about committee members, tions at various local government Technical Advisory Committee schedule, meeting agendas and and community meetings and (TAC), Citizens Transportation meeting summaries, scope of a formal public review period Advisory Committee (CTAC) work and information about for the draft document held in and the Elderly and Disability public engagement. The website August 2016. Advisory Committee (EDAC), also provided contact informa- Early Input: March – May 2016 as well as GRTC Transit System, tion for more information or to VDOT and DRPT. There are submit comments throughout nine TAC members (one from the public review period. The The first public outreach effort each TPO area local govern- focused on promotion and ment), two CTAC members (recommended by CTAC- one Jurisdiction and one At-Large) and one EDAC member (recom- mended by EDAC). There are also non-voting transportation advisors on the committee composed of staffs from area state and regional transportation agencies and organizations as well as alternates for the TAC and CTAC and transportation agency members. As a joint technical/citizen advisory committee, the MTP AC provided on-going citizen involvement for development of plan2040 with citizens empow- ered as voting members on the committee. Notices for all MTP AC meetings are posted on the RRPDC and plan2040 websites, with meeting agendas emailed to area news media and interested
Public Participation and Outreach Participation Public citizens.
fig. 2.1. plan2040 website 34 education on plan2040 and the RRPDC and plan2040 Multimodal Connectivity, the RRTPO as an organiza- websites and in hard copies with Access to Employment, and tion through presentations and pre-stamped envelopes at all staff Transportation and Land Use the launch of an online survey. presentations and presentations Integration. Respondents prior- TPO staff engaged the MTP to the CTAC and EDAC at itized improvements fairly AC, TAC, CTAC, and EDAC their May 2016 meetings. The evenly across all options but for invitations to present at any survey received 56 responses and the top three are maintaining upcoming meetings to speak provided information on public and repairing highways, roads, about plan2040 and opportu- opinion of transportation goals and bridges, expanding and nities for people to participate and priorities for funding and improving existing public trans- in the update process. Over the future projects. Details about the portation service, and creating months, staff delivered presenta- survey results may be found at new sidewalks and bicycle paths. tions at the following meetings the Appendix of the Summary The survey provided a question or events: Document. • Richmond TPO Transportation allowed respondents to write in Forum: March 4, 2016 The results of the survey found additional comments or questions that the top three goals for about the regional transportation • Active RVA Summit: March 7, improving transportation system. 22 responses covered a 2016 in the Richmond region, as • Ashland Town Council: March identified by participants, are 15, 2016
• Constituents of Frank Thornton Henrico Community Meeting: March 24, 2016
• New Kent County Planning Commission: April 18, 2016
• New Kent Outreach Council: April 20, 2016
• Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors: April 27, 2016
• Goochland Community Partners: May 11, 2016
• Senior Connections Open House: May 24, 2016
As part of the presentation and early public outreach, TPO staff highlighted a survey asking for input on the nine Goals of plan2040 and prioritizing trans-
portation investments in the and Outreach Participation Public Richmond region. The survey was available online through fig. 2.2. RRTPO staff at the new kent outreach council meeting on april 20, 2016 35 fig. 2.3. plan2040 survey
range of topics including (but • Addressing the needs of the used to provide supplemental transportation dependent not all): population such as seniors and information on the public review • Need for regional public individuals with disabilities and period and upcoming public transportation including the barriers that prevent these meetings. the expansion of transit populations from being to walk service and access to transit, to transit stops Invitation for public comment especially related to access to and notice of public review was employment Public Review of Draft e-mailed and mailed on August Document: August 2016 • Investing in multimodal 9, 2016 to the TPO, TAC, planning in the region to move CTAC, and EDAC members, from auto centric travel The draft document in Word alternates, and interested parties. • Reduction in funding road format was submitted to the Other organizations notified widenings and expansions MTP AC at their June 15, 2016 include nonprofit, human service, social service agencies • Transportation and land use meeting and approved for formal that supports all modes of public review by the TPO Board and organizations, miscellaneous transportation at the July 7, 2016 meeting. Bound public and private transportation copies of the draft plan were providers, emergency manage- • More business location ment contacts, previous public research to stimulate made available during the review economic development period at selected community review meeting attendees, and libraries, RideFinders offices and RRPDC staff. A separate e-mail • Greater collaboration between the RRPDC offices; the docu- was sent to resource agencies on the City of Richmond and its August 10, 2016 to notify them neighbors ments were also made available for review on the RRPDC and of the public review period for Capital Region Collaborative the draft document and a request
Public Participation and Outreach Participation Public websites. Social media accounts for comments. (Facebook and Twitter) for the RRPDC and RRTPO were 36 Notice of the public review higher than average percentage vulnerable populations impacted period was published in several of residents of color. by projects identified in the area newspapers: constrained plan. Planning activ- • Richmond Times-Dispatch – 3 A total of 32 attendees came to ities are informed by Executive col x 7-inch ad – August 1, 2016 the three public meetings where Order 12898 on Environmental • Richmond Free Press – 3 col x display boards highlighting Justice. Two of three plan2040 5.25-inch ad – August 4, 2016 elements of plan2040 as well • Chesterfield Observer – 4.64 x public engagement locations were 2.89-inch ad – August 3, 2016 as a formal presentation were selected based on critical criteria • Goochland Gazette – 3 col x presented. Opportunities for including proximity to proposed 4.5-inch ad – August 3, 2016 questions and discussion were projects, a higher than average • Mechanicsville Local – 3 col x available throughout all meetings 4.5-inch ad – August 3, 2016 percentage of low-income resi- • Powhatan Today – 3 col x 6.75- and comment forms were distrib- dents, and a higher than average inch ad – August 3, 2016 uted to attendees. percentage of residents of color. • Henrico Citizen – 2.4 x 1.5-inch ad for e-mail distribution, 4.167 August 16, 2016 A basic asset map was developed x 2.431-inch for online posting, 4.75 x 2.85-inch ad for print – from 6:00 – 7:30 PM for this MTP public engage- August 4, 2016 ment process. Employing GIS • Herald Progress – 3 col x 5.25- Varina Library, 1875 New and Google Maps, census tracts inch ad – August 4, 2016 Market Road, Henrico, adjacent to proposed projects Public Meetings VA 23231 that fall above the regional threshold for low-income August 17, 2016 households or residents of color Three public meetings at three from 6:00 – 7:30 PM were selected for meeting siting. locations in the Richmond Libraries in these communities region, selected as part of the Ginter Park Library, were identified to host meetings Environmental Justice analysis 1200 Westbrook Avenue, at which the plan2040 document related to plan2040. The public Henrico, VA 23227 will be reviewed in its entirety engagement process aims with an emphasis placed on to improve access to public August 22, 2016 informing the public about meetings for populations that from 6:00 - 8:00 PM projects that are likely to impact have historically faced barriers identified communities. A third to participation in transportation Meadowdale Library, library location was selected at planning. Using an interactive 4301 Meadowdale the request of a member of the mapping strategy, meeting loca- RRTPO board. tions were identified that are Boulevard, convenient and accessible for Richmond, VA 23234 This basic asset mapping activity vulnerable populations impacts using GIS and Google Maps This public engagement process by projects identified in the will be documented in full as aimed to improve access to public Fiscally Constrained Plan. Two the RRTPO’s Title VI and meetings for populations that of the three public meeting Environmental Justice Program have historically faced barriers locations were selected based continues to expand further to to participation in transportation on critical criteria including inform a broader array of work planning. Using an interactive proximity to proposed projects, program activities.
mapping strategy, meeting loca- 6:00 – 7:30 PM 2016 from 17, August a higher than average percentage tions were identified that are of low-income residents, and convenient and accessible for 37 plan2040 Public Review Comment #1: Comment Form local routes to the GRTC Pulse Comments Filled Out at Public Meeting and seek public and stakeholder More transit access for those input throughout the develop- Public comments received during who do not have transporta- ment of the plan. Three concepts the August 2016 comment period tion. are being explored as part of were compiled by TPO staff and the plan development: Familiar responses will be drafted and Concept, High Coverage reviewed with the 2040 MTP Staff Response Concept, and High Ridership Advisory Committee at their Concept. These three concepts September 13, 2016 meeting. Emerging transit efforts are are only for input and feedback currently underway to explore from the public, stakeholders and more transit service and access in elected officials before a proposal the Richmond region including for a new network is developed. the Greater RVA Transit Vision Plan, City of Richmond’s Transit GRTC Transit’s Transit Network Plan, and GRTC Transit Development Plan (TDP), last System’s Transit Development updated in January 2016 for Plan. The Greater RVA Transit Fiscal Years 2012-2017, is a Vision Plan, developed by the requirement from the Virginia Virginia Department of Rail and Department of Rail and Public Public Transportation with the Transportation (VDRPT) for any RRTPO, is scheduled to finish public transit operator receiving in fall 2016 with a commitment state funding. VDRPT identifies of the recommendations from TDPs as a way to help transit the plan to be used to inform the operators improve their efficiency plan2045 update. Current transit and effectiveness by identifying and demographic data, land use the need and required resources data and plans, transit and popu- for modifying and enhancing lation forecasts, and stakeholder services provided to the general inputs are used as part of the plan public. It also helps operators development to create a regional effectively execute planning, transit vision plan, which will funding, and implementation help guide transit development of public transit services. These through 2040. The study schedule plans are updated every six years has a Fall 2016 timeframe for a and must be adopted by the oper- final draft of the plan. ator’s governing body. The update to GRTC Transit System’s TDP The Richmond Transit Network will contain elements including Plan is a yearlong planning study goals and objectives, an evaluation starting back in April 2016, which of existing service and system, is analyzing the GRTC Transit transit service and facility needs, System current bus network service and facility recommen- within the City of Richmond’s dations, a capital improvement August 22, 2016 from 6:00 - 8:00 PM 22, 2016 from August boundary and reconsidering the program (CIP), financial plan, design of the bus routes. The plan and monitoring and evaluation will consider how to connect procedures. 38 Comment #2: Comment Form and pavements. State of Good Filled Out at Public Meeting Repair projects are programmed Potholes on I-295, getting off in the Six-Year Improvement at Varina-Enon Bridge head- Program, a list of projects that ing north. are completely funded for construction. The program, which is subject to a separate Staff Response asset management process, is The Regional Road Network another option for addressing the section in the Technical pavement conditions of roads in Document portion of plan2040 the Richmond region. provides information on the Comment #3: Comment Form roadway surface conditions in Filled Out at Public Meeting the Richmond Construction Better road projects like the District, highlighting how it ones in the West End and maintains the most lane-miles Southside. in the state of Virginia at 18,769 lane-miles. Information on the pavement conditions of the Staff Response interstate system can be found in the Virginia Department The RRTPO works with all of Transportation’s State of of their partners to identify the Pavement report updated transportation investments that annually. Maintenance funding provide several benefits to the for the roads result in approxi- Richmond region including mately 80% off the top of available economic development, funding for transportation job access, and multimodal projects in the Richmond region connectivity. Such benefits are as a reflection of the state of highlighted in the nine Goals Virginia as a state of good repair of plan2040, which guide the and prioritizing the maintenance selection of candidate projects of the existing transportation in the Fiscally Constrained system before any new construc- Plan. On-time delivery and tion. The RRTPO will continue quality of road projects in the its coordination with the VDOT region are also priorities for the Richmond District on pavement RRTPO through the admin- conditions. istration of funding programs such as the Regional Surface The State of Good Repair Transportation Program (RSTP) program, established under and Congestion Mitigation and the 2015 Governor’s Omnibus Air Quality Program (CMAQ). Transportation Bill, is another funding program that provides August 22, 2016 from 6:00 - 8:00 PM 22, 2016 from August state and federal construction funds for the capital recon- struction of deteriorated bridges 39 40 Performance Measures
After reviewing the federal and state legislation that directs the development of the RRTPO’s Unified Planning Work Program andplan2040 under the RRTPO Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Development Process section, this section will look into performance measures on a regional scale and highlight the RRTPO Regional Performance Measures Annual Progress Report, recently updated for 2015. Performance-based planning and programming is also reflected in the plan2040 Goals, which are discussed in further detail in the next section of the Summary Document.
Background During the Virginia General Assembly legislative session in 2009, a new state legislative requirement was enacted to ensure that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) within urbanized areas of over 200,000 persons develop and implement regional performance measures. This legislative requirement affects the following Virginia MPOs: • Fredericksburg Area MPO
• Hampton Roads TPO
• Northern Virginia MPO
• Richmond Regional TPO
• Roanoke Valley MPO
• Tri-Cities MPO (due to inclusion in the Richmond urbanized area)
The RRTPO received a letter from then Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer on January 8, 2010 advising of the action taken during the 2009 General Assembly session to establish these performance measures (part of House Bill 2019/Senate Bill 1398, relating to the Statewide Transportation Plan and transportation corridors). Chapter 670 of House Bill 2019 and Chapter 690 of Senate Bill 1398 state that the implementation of performance measures may be required for MPOs to receive matching federal Surface Transportation Program funds. This legislation charged the Office of Intermodal Planning Investment (OIPI) of the Secretary of Transportation with the responsibility to (among other things), “develop quantifiable and achievable goals ... and transportation and land use performance measures and prepare an annual performance report on state and regional efforts.”
41 The legislation further specifies Secretary’s Office had secured a on behalf of the MPO, approved under Section 33.1-23.03 “Board consultant to assist MPOs with a final draft list of Regional to Develop and Update Statewide identification of the required Performance Measures, and Transportation Plan” that the measures. In view of the schedule authorized its submission to the Commonwealth Transportation noted for completion of work Office of Intermodal Planning Board (CTB) “may require on these performance measures, (OIPI). that appropriate regional orga- staff recommended and the nizations develop as part of a MPO authorized the MPO’s At its meeting in June, 2011 the long-range plan quantifiable TAC to take action on behalf of CTB approved the performance measures and achievable goals the MPO to review and approve measures as recommended by the for the urban region relating to regional transportation perfor- various MPOs. The measures for , but not limited to, congestion mance measures and also submit the Richmond area are shown reduction and safety, transit and these approved measures to the in the table as first introduced. high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) CTB for its review and approval. Following notification of the usage, job-to-housing ratios, job Conference calls and discussions CTB’s approval of the Richmond and housing access to transit and were held with staff from VDOT, area proposed regional perfor- pedestrian facilities, air quality, OIPI, and other affected MPOs mance measures; the next task movement of freight by rail, and to develop proposed measures was to collect the data for each per capita miles traveled.” to meet the requirements of measure to establish a baseline this legislation. In early January from which to track the trends in The requirement to develop and 2011, staff received from OIPI system performance. implement these performance “Regional Performance Measures measures is enforced in Budget Staff used the various data Guidelines” and was advised to sources as suggested in the Bill Item 436: “Beginning submit its list of regional perfor- July 1, 2011, in providing the matrix shown, and developed mance measures to OIPI by the baseline for each measure. required match for federal April 30, 2011. Regional Surface Transportation Upon completion of the data Program funds made avail- Further direction contained in collection, the regional perfor- able to Metropolitan Planning the guidelines from OIPI were mance measures were posted Organizations in urbanized areas that, going forward, all MPOs on the RRPDC/TPO website greater than 200,000, the board should update the regional by the due date of October 31, shall only make allocations to performance measures before 2011. Staff was notified by the those Metropolitan Planning the end of October of each year OIPI on November 1, 2011 that Organizations that, in consulta- and that the measures should be the Richmond TPO fulfilled its tion with the Office of Intermodal posted on each MPO’s respective obligation to develop regional Planning and Investment, have website. OIPI is to be notified transportation and land use developed regional transporta- when the measures are completed performance measures as set tion and land use performance and posted. forth by the Virginia General measures pursuant to Chapters Assembly. A partial list of the 670 and 690 of the 2009 Acts In consultation with the MPO’s original regional performance of Assembly and have been TAC, and in consideration of the measures is shown in the table. approved by the board.” available data and performance measures most suitable for the
Performance Measures Measures Performance At the October 14, 2010 MPO Richmond area, the TAC at its meeting, staff reported on meeting on March 17, 2011, this matter, advising that the approved a resolution that, acting 42 Regional Performance Measures – Annual Progress Report 2015
The Regional Performance Measures – Annual Progress Report 2015 modified the format of the data report into a document with a summary overview of the performance measures tracked by the RRTPO and an analysis of the trends for the region’s multimodal transportation system performance. The report provided comparisons of the Richmond region’s performance versus peer and similarly sized regions and highlighted technical reports and work efforts related to the performance measures as part of the RRTPO’s Unified Planning Work Program. Performance Measures Measures Performance
fig. 3.1. original regional performance measures matrix 43 Performance measures were measurement as part of the used as part of the project eval- States and MPO process, coining uation process for the Fiscally the term “Performance-Based Constrained Plan, and similar Planning and Programming statistics and data were requested (PBPP)”. for project applications to deter- “Performance-based planning mine how well projects met the and programming includes nine Goals of plan2040. The last using transportation element of the report identifies performance measures, new measures that either relate setting targets, reporting to a Goal from plan2040 and performance, and has data readily available to TPO programming transportation staff or should be considered investments towards the for future updates to the annual achievement of transportation system per- report. The report can be found formance outcomes” (FHWA, on the RRPDC website and is PBPP Guidebook) available upon request. MAP-21 and the FAST Act emphasize performance
Regional Performance Measures Annual Progress Report 2015 Performance Measures Measures Performance
fig. 3.2. rrtpo cover of regional performance measures annual progress report 44 this page intentionally left blank Performance Measures Measures Performance
45 46 Goals
One of the findings of the federal certification review of the RRTPO in September 2014 was the lack of goals and objectives in the 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan. Without goals and objectives, there was no guidance in the implementation of plan2035 for projects and programs. This left a gap in establishing and monitoring performance measures, introduced in MAP-21 legislation and from VDOT in regional performance measures.
Staff worked with the MTP Advisory Committee to develop goals for plan2040 starting with a comparison across different sources to identify recurring themes or overlaps in goals. The table below was sent out to MTP Advisory Committee members with a request for input on the comparison and feedback on additional areas.
The sources include federal planning factors, MAP-21 goals, Virginia Multimodal Transportation Plan (VTrans2040), House Bill 2 (HB2) Weighting Factors, and 2031 LRTP Goals.
The federal planning factors issued by Congress continue through MAP-21 and FAST Act as an integrated element of the transportation planning processes for both statewide and metropolitan planning organizations. Up until the final planning rule was released for the FAST Act on May 27, 2016 by FHWA and FTA, there were eight planning factors to provide direction for a multimodal transportation plan and process:
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users
4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, people and freight
47 A safe and efficient regional 7. Promote efficient system • Reduced Project Delivery Delays: to reduce project transportation system management and operation costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite 8. Emphasize the preservation A regional transportation the movement of people system that is well of the existing transportation and goods by accelerating maintained and maximizes system project completion through eliminating delays in the performance Two new federal planning project development and factors introduced in the FAST delivery process, including A regional transportation reducing regulatory burdens system that promotes Act address resiliency and reli- and improving agencies’ work ability or reduction/mitigation practices economic development and of stormwater impacts and travel quality job creation and tourism. VTrans2040 is currently under Air, rail, and port facilities to The national performance goals development but its Vision was meet the region’s growing in MAP-21 focus on: adopted by the Commonwealth needs • Safety: to achieve a significant Transportation Board on reduction in traffic fatalities December 9, 2015, serving as A sustainable regional and serious injuries on all public roads a policy framework to guide transportation system that is investment decisions over the environmentally compatible • Infrastructure Condition: next 25 years. The five goals are and ensures a high quality of to maintain the highway as follows: life for all the region’s citizens infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair Congestion Mitigation A transportation planning • Congestion Reduction: to process that is inclusive, achieve a significant reduction Economic Development comprehensive and flexible in congestion on the National Highway System Accessibility A balanced transportation • System Reliability: to improve system that offers attractive the efficiency of the surface Safety modal choices and serves the transportation system needs of the region’s diverse and changing population • Freight Movement and Environmental Quality Economic Vitality: to A secure and resilient trans- improve the National Freight Transportation & Land Network, strengthen the portation system that meets ability of rural communities Use (for areas over Homeland Security and to access national and 200,000 in population) Emergency Preparedness international trade markets, needs and support regional economic The last source of goals for development plan2040 is the Richmond • Environmental Sustainability: Area MPO’s 2031 Long-Range to enhance the performance Transportation Plan. These goals of the transportation were short objectives for the system while protecting plan, and describe initiatives for and enhancing the natural the transportation system in the
environment Richmond region.
48 Through discussion with the MTP Advisory Committee, nine goals were developed for plan2040 and approved on August 26, 2015. The RRTPO Board reviewed and approved the goals at their September 24, 2015 meeting for inclusion in the plan2040 document as guidance for the development of the Project Ranking and Selection Process in the Fiscally Constrained Plan. Details of the relationship between the plan2040 Goals and the Project Ranking and Selection Process can be found in the Fiscally Constrained Plan section of the Summary Document. Each Goal features questions used in the Candidate Project Applications as part of the development of the Fiscally Constrained Plan, requesting information and data from applicants as to how the project met each of the nine Goals.
49 Access to Employment Provide for transportation system connections to areas of employ- ment density and key activity centers, with an emphasis on connecting to areas of high poverty rates Will planned regional projects improve access to areas of employ- ment density? Will planned regional projects increase accessibility to key regional activity centers from areas with high poverty rates?
Congestion Mitigation Support transportation system improvements that address existing and expected future traffic congestion Will planned projects improve areas of localized congestion within the project area? Will planned projects improve system functionality?
Environmental & Air Quality Prioritize project alternatives that protect and enhance the region’s natural resources Will planned projects minimize air quality impacts? Will planned projects minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources?
50 Freight Mobility Enhance freight corridors and intermodal connections to facilitate goods movement into, within, and out of the region Will planned projects improve the regional intermodal freight network? Will planned projects improve access to freight-intensive facilities?
Multimodal Connectivity Improve accessibility and interconnectivity of various transportation modes for all system users Will planned projects introduce new connections between new or existing travel patterns? Will planned projects eliminate barriers in key corridors? Will planned projects implement Complete Street elements?
Preservation & Maintenance Ensure that existing transportation infrastructure and facilities achieve a consistent state of good repair Will planned projects prolong the useful life of the transportation system and infrastructure through reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventative maintenance?
Prolong the useful life of bridge infrastructure or transportation facilities/fleet through reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventative maintenance? 51 Safety & Security Provide for transportation improvements that increase safety and security for all system users Will planned projects reduce injury and fatality crash rates? Reduce non-motorized crashes (bicycle and pedestrian)? Improve transportation system security?
System Reliability Implement technologies to improve travel times and support the ease of travel throughout the region Will planned projects address high travel times or improve reliability? Increase public transportation service frequency and capacity? Incorporate travel demand management (TDM) strategies?
Transportation & Land Use Integration Support transportation investments that meet the needs of existing and future land use and development patterns Will planned projects promote in-fill development or redevelop- ment of brownfield sites? Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT)?
Improve or support transportation infrastructure in existing and planned growth areas? Promote walking or bike-friendly, mixed-use development? 52 this page intentionally left blank
53 54 Fiscally Constrained Plan
According to federal metropolitan planning rules, plan2040 must include a financial plan that estimates how much funding will be needed to implement recommended improvements, as well as operate and maintain the system as a whole, over the life of the plan. This includes information on how the TPO reasonably expects to fund the projects included in the plan, including anticipated revenues from FHWA and FTA, state government, regional or local sources, the private sector, and user charges. plan2040 must demonstrate a balance between the expected revenue sources for transportation investments and the estimated costs of the projects and programs described in the plan. In other words, plan2040 must be fiscally (or financially) constrained.
Federal metropolitan planning rules require that the RRTPO, VDOT, and DRPT cooperatively develop transportation revenue forecasts. Forecasts are based on trends from existing and potential funding sources such as the gas tax or bond measures. In addition, project cost estimates in the financial plan must be shown in “year of expenditure” dollars based on reasonable inflation factors.
Given the long-term nature of plan2040, and the degree of uncertainty in estimating both costs and revenues, funding shown in plan2040 may not be available in exactly the same amounts or mix of sources indicated in the Plan. Actual funding amounts depend on the federal, state and local budget processes for any given year. Near term plans, such as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which covers four years, must demonstrate stricter fiscal constraint, ensuring that as costs and revenue forecasts become more precise, and as projects move towards implementation, fiscal accountability is maintained.
55 Financial Resources incentive to states and TPOs to • Safety improvements for the NHS use federal dollars for highway The FAST Act is the current construction. The various sources • Transportation planning federal legislation authorizing of funding are discussed in more funding for state transportation • Highway research and planning detail below: programs. The FAST Act guaran- The National Highway tees funding for each state, keyed • Highway related technology Performance Program transfer activities to federal Highway Trust Fund (Highway Account) receipts. The National Highway• Capital and operating Performance Program (NHPP) costs for traffic monitoring, The FAST Act has a range of funds are intended for an inter- management, and control facilities and programs distinct funding categories, connected system of routes which but only a few provide the vast will serve major population • Fringe and corridor parking majority of federal funds for centers, border crossings, ports, facilities surface transportation projects airports, public transportation • Carpool and vanpool projects in the Richmond area. These facilities, other intermodal trans- are the National Highway portation facilities, meet defense • Bicycle transportation and Performance Program (NHPP) requirements, and serve interstate pedestrian walkways funds, Surface Transportation and interregional travel. Federal Block Grant Program funds, • Development and maintenance participation is 80 percent. of management systems Congestion Mitigation and Air When NHPP funds are used Quality Improvement Program for interstate projects, including • Natural habitat and wetlands (CMAQ) funds, Highway Safety high occupancy vehicle (HOV) mitigation efforts Improvement Program (HSIP), and auxiliary lane projects, but • Publicly-owned bus terminals and Transit Capital funds. not any other lanes, the federal With regard to transit capital, the share may be 90 percent. • Infrastructure-based intelligent transportation system capital Federal Transit Administration Eligible projects include: improvements (FTA) oversees the allocation of federal transit funds, which Surface Transportation Block generally fall into two major cate- • Construction, reconstruction, Grant Program resurfacing, restoration and gories: capital grants for transit rehabilitation of segments The Surface Transportation operators that are apportioned identified as part of the NHS Block Grant (STBG) Program to areas by national formula, and is the largest and most flexible transit capital investment grants • Operational improvements for segments of the NHS funding program under FAST that are awarded on a “discre- Act and provides broad discre- tionary” basis, as determined by • Construction and operational tion for states and TPOs to fund FTA on the basis of a series of improvements for roads and a variety of activities. These evaluation criteria. transit projects not on the NHS provided that the project is in include: Most FAST Act funding the same corridor and in close proximity to the NHS route, programs require a 20 percent improves the level of service match to the federal dollars on the NHS route, and is more provided for a given project. cost-effective than work on the
Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally Since there is no federal support NHS route to provide the same benefits for transit service operations, this 80-20 split provides a strong 56 • Construction, reconstruction, (80%) unless used on inter- rehabilitation, resurfacing, • Infrastructure-based intelligent restoration, and operational state facilities in which case the transportation system capital improvements for roads and federal share is 90 percent (90%). improvements bridges, including any such Some projects and programs construction or reconstruction • Habitat and wetland mitigation (e.g., rideshare match programs) necessary to accommodate efforts other transportation modes require no state or local match funds. Transportation control • Environmental restoration and • Capital costs for transit pollution abatement measures (TCMs) programmed projects including vehicles in the State Implementation and facilities used to provide • Control of terrestrial and intercity passenger service by Plan (SIP) receives priority for aquatic noxious weeds and bus CMAQ funds. establishment of native species • Carpool projects, fringe and Note that the SIP for the corridor parking facilities Richmond Nonattainment/ and programs, bicycle and The Regional SurfaceMaintenance Area does not pedestrian facilities on any public road and the Transportation Program (RSTP) have TCM projects specifi- modification of sidewalks to fund is a percentage of the cally programmed; however, comply with the Americans STBG funds distributed to many TCM-like projects are With Disabilities Act qualified TPOs. Urbanized areas programmed and funded in the • Highway and transit safety with a population of 200,000 or Richmond region. Projects are infrastructure improvements more (also called Transportation selected for CMAQ funding by and programs, hazard Management Areas (TMAs)), the TPO, in coordination with eliminations, projects to receive these funds which are the local representative to the mitigate hazards caused by wildlife, and railway-highway flexible and can be used for Commonwealth Transportation grade crossings roadway or transit projects Board. Eligible projects are: (eligible activities same as STBG • Transportation activities • Highway and transit research shown above). in an approved State and development and Implementation Plan (SIP) technology transfer programs Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program • Transportation control • Capital and operating (CMAQ) measures as defined in the costs for traffic monitoring, Clean Air Act (see Clean Air management, and control As the name implies, Congestion Act section) facilities and programs Mitigation and Air Quality • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Surface transportation (CMAQ) funds are targeted planning programs for projects designed to reduce • Management and monitoring congestion and improve air systems • Transportation enhancement quality in areas designated as activities (see enhancement • Traffic management/ section) non-attainment or maintenance monitoring/congestion relief under the Clean Air Act. The strategies • Transportation control Richmond area is currently clas- measures (see Clean Air Act sified as an attainment area but • Transit expansion section) its previous designation of main- • Alternative fuel projects • Development and tenance area for ozone air quality establishment of management • Public/private partnerships
standards allows it to remain Plan Constrained Fiscally systems eligible for CMAQ funding. • Inspection and maintenance Federal participation is 80 percent programs 57 • Intermodal freight • Provision of safety and data driven approach to highway educational activities for • Telecommunications travel pedestrians and bicyclists safety. The Highway-Rail Grade demand management Crossing Safety Program is strategies • Acquisition of scenic included with dedicated set-aside easements and scenic or funding as part of the HSIP. • Project development activities historic sites for new services or programs The VDOT Traffic Engineering that have air quality benefits • Scenic or historic highway programs including tourist and Division (TED) serves as the • Public education and outreach welcome center facilities focal point for administration of activities the Federal and State categorical • Landscaping and other scenic safety programs (HSIP). VDOT • Rideshare programs beautification has established a competitive • Establishing/contracting with • Historic preservation application process for priori- transportation management tizing and funding safety projects associations/organizations • Rehabilitation of historic within the Commonwealth. transportation buildings, • Fare/fee subsidy programs structures, or facilities Local governments, railroad companies, and VDOT Districts • Experimental pilot projects • Preservation of abandoned rail and Residencies submit appli- with air quality benefits corridors (including conversion cations for locations they for bicycle and pedestrian facilities) recommend for improvement. Construction of projects adding The applications are evaluated new capacity for single-occupant • Control and removal of outdoor advertising on a statewide basis rather than vehicles IS NOT eligible. All on a local or district basis, to projects proposed for CMAQ • Archaeological planning and ensure that locations in need funding must include an analysis research of improvement have a better of the air quality benefits (i.e., • Environmental mitigation opportunity to be selected and the amount of reduction in to address water pollution funded. The candidate projects emissions). due to highway run-off or compete against their respective Transportation Alternatives reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining counterparts for funding, based Formerly known in MAP-21 as habitat connectivity on a benefit/cost analysis for the Transportation Alternatives motorized highway improve- Program (TAP), Transportation • Safe routes to school projects ments and on risk assessments for Alternatives is a set-aside of Highway Safety Improvement non-motorized and highway-rail STBG funding for all projects Program (HSIP) grade crossing improvements. and activities previously eligible Revenue Sharing under TAP. These projects and The FAST Act includes a core VDOT administers the activities are intended to integrate Highway Safety Improvement Revenue Sharing Program in the transportation network with Program (HSIP) that is struc- cooperation with participating the community or to mitigate tured to significantly reduce localities, under the authority of visual or environmental impacts highway fatalities and injuries. Section 33.2-357 of the Code of the transportation facilities. States are required to develop of Virginia, effective October Eligible projects include: and implement an effective, inte- 1, 2014. According to VDOT’s
Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally grated and coordinated Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) website, this program provides that involves a comprehensive, additional funding for use by a county, city, or town to construct 58 or improve the highway systems are awarded through a competi- allocations and trends in federal within such county, city, or town, tive selection process. These types funds designated for transit with statutory limitations on the of funds cannot be included capital. The most recent revenue amount of state funds authorized in the Revenue Projections of forecast was provided by VDOT per locality. Funds can also be the Fiscally Constrained Plan on October 30, 2015 and by requested for eligible additions in since these funds are not part DRPT on December 10, 2015. certain counties of the state and of a formula allocation process Administrative and Maintenance locality funds are matched with and cannot be calculated with funding are separated from other state funds for qualifying projects. certainty into the timeband revenue streams to indicate avail- An annual allocation of funds for projections. able funding for projects in the this program is designated by the Fiscally Constrained Plan. Commonwealth Transportation Projects on the Unconstrained Board (CTB) and application for Projects List that are awarded Identified revenue sources program funding must be made SMART SCALE or similar include CMAQ, RSTP, District by resolution of the governing competitive, non-formula funds Grant Program, High Priority body with appropriate forms as are considered by the RRTPO to Projects, State of Good Repair, outlined in the Revenue Sharing be consistent with the metropol- and TAP. District Grant, High Guidelines. itan transportation plan. Priority, and State of Good High Priority Projects Construction District Grant Repair are all new programs Program Program introduced in House Bill 2 by the General Assembly and the The other grant program under One of the two grant programs CTB. For DRPT revenues, only House Bill 1887 in 2015, the established under House Bill transit revenues were identified Construction District Grant 1887 in 2015, the High Priority and include portions as appli- Program (CDGP) is open only Projects Program (HPPP) funds cable to GRTC Transit System to localities and replaces the projects throughout the state and different funding programs old “40-30-30” construction of Virginia in a prioritization including Enhanced Mobility fund allocation model used in process known as SMART of Seniors and Individuals with Virginia. A project applying SCALE (formerly House Bill Disabilities (Section 5310), for funds from the CDGP is 2). Projects that qualify for Urbanized Area Formula prioritized with projects from HPPP address capacity needs Program (Section 5340), Rural the same construction district on either Corridors of Statewide Area Formula Program (Section and submitted by a locality to be Significance (CoSS) or Regional 5307), Buses and Bus Facilities eligible. These projects address Networks as defined through Grants Program (Section 5339), capacity needs on CoSS and VTrans2040, the state’s long- and Metropolitan Planning Regional Networks as well as range multimodal transportation (Section 5303). plan. The CTB then decides the improvements to support Urban projects to be funded under both Development Areas (UDAs). The inclusion of DRPT revenues only reflects transit funding as HPPP and CDGP for inclusion Revenue Projections in the Six-Year Improvement rail funding has no dedicated source and the Statewide Rail Program. The amount of funds available to Plan only identifies rail projects the Richmond area on an annual Funding sources such as the with cost estimates for the basis was estimated by VDOT
SMART SCALE High Priority Commonwealth. Developing a Plan Constrained Fiscally and DRPT, based on the most Projects Program and federal methodology for dividing rail recent federal and state legisla- funds like TIGER or FASTLane, projects for the Richmond region tion in regard to transportation 59 was not in the original schedule and scope of work for plan2040 but will be incorporated for plan2045. Rail projects and any identified revenues are only in the first time band. Revenues by Time Band
The costs of projects included in each time band need to be balanced against the projected revenues available for each respective time band, for each funding category. The projected available funding aggregated for each timeband beginning with FY 2022. The totals for the VDOT and DRPT revenue projections are provided in Fig.5.1-5.4 on the next four pages. For plan2040, the following six-year time bands were used: • Timeband One – FY17 - FY22 • Timeband Two – FY23 – FY28 • Timeband Three – FY29 – FY34 • Timeband Four – FY35 - FY40 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
60 fig. 5.1.
plan2040 revenueprojections -timeband 1 plan2040 Revenue Projections
RRTPO - VDOT Revenues1 TIMEBAND 1 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 Administrative $ 8,556,593 $ 8,742,800 $ 8,937,147 $ 9,137,286 $ 9,335,041 $ 9,514,414 Maintenance-Localities $ 82,672,296 $ 84,077,461 $ 85,590,576 $ 87,216,501 $ 88,960,520 $ 90,739,419 Maintenance-VDOT $ 167,582,490 $ 170,458,653 $ 173,538,682 $ 176,835,772 $ 180,348,941 $ 183,934,490 Total Off-the-TOP $ 258,811,379 $ 263,278,914 $ 268,066,405 $ 273,189,559 $ 278,644,502 $ 284,188,323
CMAQ $ 6,577,446 $ 6,577,446 $ 6,577,446 $ 6,577,446 $ 6,577,446 $ 6,639,932 CMAQ-Match $ 1,644,362 $ 1,644,362 $ 1,644,362 $ 1,644,362 $ 1,644,362 $ 1,659,983 District Grant Program $ 5,457,232 $ 3,184,068 $ 2,885,654 $ 9,468,711 $ 26,903,574 $ 20,812,667 High Priority Projects $ 5,457,232 $ 3,184,068 $ 2,885,654 $ 9,468,711 $ 26,903,574 $ 20,812,667 Other Discretionary Construction $ 33,090,608 $ 25,859,264 $ 24,540,640 $ 21,469,878 $ 4,486,523 $ 7,986,371 RSTP $ 12,314,548 $ 12,314,548 $ 12,314,548 $ 12,314,548 $ 12,314,548 $ 12,420,453 RSTP-Match $ 3,078,637 $ 3,078,637 $ 3,078,637 $ 3,078,637 $ 3,078,637 $ 3,105,113 State of Good Repair $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 34,371,796 $ 34,057,091 TAP $ 972,004 $ 972,004 $ 972,004 $ 972,004 $ 972,004 $ 980,363 Total VDOT Revenue Available for plan2040 $ 68,592,069 $ 56,814,396 $ 54,898,945 $ 64,994,298 $ 117,252,465 $ 108,474,639 $ 471,026,812 CLRP TOTAL $ 327,403,448 $ 320,093,310 $ 322,965,350 $ 338,183,857 $ 395,896,967 $ 392,662,962
RRTPO - DRPT Transit Revenues2 TIMEBAND 1 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 Section 5303 $ 435,921 $ 435,921 $ 435,921 Section 5307/5340 $ 14,311,376 $ 14,311,376 $ 14,311,376 Section 5339 $ 1,582,547 $ 1,582,547 $ 1,582,547 Section 5310 $ 972,517 $ 972,517 $ 972,517 DRPT Capital MTTF (GRTC portion) $ 13,823,000 $ 1,619,000 $ 3,739,071 $ 2,971,014 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 Flexible STP & Equity Bonus (GRTC Portion) $ - $ - $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 Special Projects and Paratransit, TDM & TMP $ 25,837 $ 26,399 $ 26,961 $ 27,507 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 Total DRPT Revenue Available for plan2040 $ 31,151,198 $ 18,947,760 $ 22,179,926 $ 4,110,054 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 84,733,420
RRTPO - DRPT Rail Revenues3
Total FY 17-22 Revenues$ 555,760,232
1 VDOT Revenue Projections provided to RRTPO on October 30, 2015 2 DRPT Revenue Projections provided to RRTPO on December 10, 2015 3 DRPT Revenue Projections for Rail not provided to RRTPO 61 Fiscally Constrained Plan 62 Fiscally Constrained Plan fig. 5.2.
plan2040 revenueprojections -timeband 2 plan2040 Revenue Projections
RRTPO - VDOT Revenues1 TIMEBAND 2 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 Administrative $ 9,485,905 $ 9,701,715 $ 9,922,759 $ 10,149,169 $ 10,381,078 $ 10,618,628 Maintenance-Localities $ 92,553,897 $ 94,404,664 $ 96,292,446 $ 98,217,984 $ 100,182,032 $ 102,185,362 Maintenance-VDOT $ 187,592,753 $ 191,325,209 $ 195,133,368 $ 199,018,770 $ 202,982,989 $ 207,027,628 Total Off-the-TOP $ 289,632,555 $ 295,431,588 $ 301,348,573 $ 307,385,923 $ 313,546,099 $ 319,831,618
CMAQ $ 6,702,956 $ 6,766,522 $ 6,830,634 $ 6,895,298 $ 6,960,518 $ 7,026,299 CMAQ-Match $ 1,675,739 $ 1,691,631 $ 1,707,659 $ 1,723,825 $ 1,740,130 $ 1,756,575 District Grant Program $ 20,257,889 $ 19,459,390 $ 18,617,015 $ 17,802,888 $ 17,029,481 $ 16,932,550 High Priority Projects $ 20,257,889 $ 19,459,390 $ 18,617,015 $ 17,802,888 $ 17,029,481 $ 16,932,550 Other Discretionary Construction $ 8,041,839 $ 8,097,785 $ 8,154,212 $ 8,211,124 $ 8,268,525 $ 8,326,421 RSTP $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 RSTP-Match $ 3,131,817 $ 3,158,751 $ 3,185,916 $ 3,213,315 $ 3,240,950 $ 3,268,822 State of Good Repair $ 33,149,273 $ 31,842,638 $ 30,464,206 $ 29,131,999 $ 27,866,424 $ 27,707,810 TAP $ 988,794 $ 997,298 $ 1,005,875 $ 1,014,525 $ 1,023,250 $ 1,032,050 Total VDOT Revenue Available for plan2040 $ 106,733,466 $ 104,000,675 $ 101,109,800 $ 98,323,132 $ 95,686,028 $ 95,510,347 $ 601,363,447 CLRP TOTAL $ 396,366,021 $ 399,432,263 $ 402,458,373 $ 405,709,055 $ 409,232,127 $ 415,341,965
RRTPO - DRPT Transit Revenues2 TIMEBAND 2 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 Section 5303 Section 5307/5340 Section 5339 Section 5310 DRPT Capital MTTF (GRTC portion) $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 Flexible STP & Equity Bonus (GRTC Portion) $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 Special Projects and Paratransit, TDM & TMP $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 Total DRPT Revenue Available for plan2040 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 25,033,446
RRTPO - DRPT Rail Revenues3
Total FY 23-28 Revenues $ 626,396,893
1 VDOT Revenue Projections provided to RRTPO on October 30, 2015 2 DRPT Revenue Projections provided to RRTPO on December 10, 2015 3 DRPT Revenue Projections for Rail not provided to RRTPO fig. 5.3.
plan2040 revenueprojections -timeband 3 plan2040 Revenue Projections
RRTPO - VDOT Revenues1 TIMEBAND 3 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 Administrative $ 10,861,961 $ 11,111,224 $ 11,366,568 $ 11,628,148 $ 11,896,126 $ 12,170,662 Maintenance-Localities $ 104,228,758 $ 106,313,023 $ 108,438,972 $ 110,607,441 $ 112,819,279 $ 115,075,354 Maintenance-VDOT $ 211,154,324 $ 215,364,747 $ 219,660,603 $ 224,043,631 $ 228,515,605 $ 233,078,338 Total Off-the-TOP $ 326,245,043 $ 332,788,994 $ 339,466,143 $ 346,279,220 $ 353,231,010 $ 360,324,354
CMAQ $ 7,092,645 $ 7,159,563 $ 7,227,055 $ 7,295,128 $ 7,363,787 $ 7,433,035 CMAQ-Match $ 1,773,161 $ 1,789,891 $ 1,806,764 $ 1,823,782 $ 1,840,947 $ 1,858,259 District Grant Program $ 17,290,581 $ 17,050,605 $ 16,645,556 $ 16,829,345 $ 16,832,153 $ 16,595,006 High Priority Projects $ 17,290,581 $ 17,050,605 $ 16,645,556 $ 16,829,345 $ 16,832,153 $ 16,595,006 Other Discretionary Construction $ 8,384,814 $ 8,443,709 $ 8,503,111 $ 8,563,024 $ 8,623,452 $ 8,684,399 RSTP $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 RSTP-Match $ 3,296,934 $ 3,325,288 $ 3,353,885 $ 3,382,729 $ 3,411,820 $ 3,441,162 State of Good Repair $ 28,293,677 $ 27,900,990 $ 27,238,182 $ 27,538,928 $ 27,543,524 $ 27,155,464 TAP $ 1,040,926 $ 1,049,878 $ 1,058,907 $ 1,068,014 $ 1,077,199 $ 1,086,463 Total VDOT Revenue Available for plan2040 $ 96,990,588 $ 96,297,798 $ 95,006,285 $ 95,857,562 $ 96,052,304 $ 95,376,063 $ 575,580,600 CLRP TOTAL $ 423,235,631 $ 429,086,792 $ 434,472,428 $ 442,136,782 $ 449,283,314 $ 455,700,417
RRTPO - DRPT Transit Revenues2 TIMEBAND 3 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 Section 5303 Section 5307/5340 Section 5339 Section 5310 DRPT Capital MTTF (GRTC portion) $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 Flexible STP & Equity Bonus (GRTC Portion) $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 Special Projects and Paratransit, TDM & TMP $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 Total DRPT Revenue Available for plan2040 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 25,033,446
RRTPO - DRPT Rail Revenues3
Total FY 29-34 Revenues$ 600,614,046
1 VDOT Revenue Projections provided to RRTPO on October 30, 2015 2 DRPT Revenue Projections provided to RRTPO on December 10, 2015 3 DRPT Revenue Projections for Rail not provided to RRTPO 63 Fiscally Constrained Plan 64 Fiscally Constrained Plan fig. 5.4.
plan2040 revenueprojections -timeband 4 plan2040 Revenue Projections
RRTPO - VDOT Revenues1 TIMEBAND 4 FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 Administrative $ 12,451,924 $ 12,740,085 $ 13,035,325 $ 13,337,823 $ 13,647,769 $ 13,965,354 Maintenance-Localities $ 117,376,550 $ 119,723,770 $ 122,117,934 $ 124,559,982 $ 127,050,871 $ 129,591,578 Maintenance-VDOT $ 237,733,677 $ 242,483,508 $ 247,329,756 $ 252,274,385 $ 257,319,400 $ 262,466,845 Total Off-the-TOP $ 367,562,151 $ 374,947,363 $ 382,483,015 $ 390,172,190 $ 398,018,040 $ 406,023,777
CMAQ $ 7,502,880 $ 7,573,325 $ 7,644,376 $ 7,716,038 $ 7,788,316 $ 7,861,216 CMAQ-Match $ 1,875,720 $ 1,893,331 $ 1,911,094 $ 1,929,010 $ 1,947,079 $ 1,965,304 District Grant Program $ 16,344,920 $ 16,215,191 $ 16,089,724 $ 15,734,841 $ 15,353,765 $ 14,987,884 High Priority Projects $ 16,344,920 $ 16,215,191 $ 16,089,724 $ 15,734,841 $ 15,353,765 $ 14,987,884 Other Discretionary Construction $ 8,745,871 $ 8,807,871 $ 8,870,405 $ 8,933,476 $ 8,997,090 $ 9,061,251 RSTP $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 $ 12,527,269 RSTP-Match $ 3,470,756 $ 3,500,604 $ 3,530,710 $ 3,561,074 $ 3,591,699 $ 3,622,587 State of Good Repair $ 26,746,233 $ 26,533,949 $ 26,328,639 $ 25,747,921 $ 25,124,343 $ 24,525,628 TAP $ 1,095,807 $ 1,105,231 $ 1,114,736 $ 1,124,323 $ 1,133,992 $ 1,143,744 Total VDOT Revenue Available for plan2040 $ 94,654,375 $ 94,371,963 $ 94,106,677 $ 93,008,793 $ 91,817,318 $ 90,682,766 $ 558,641,892 CLRP TOTAL $ 462,216,526 $ 469,319,326 $ 476,589,692 $ 483,180,983 $ 489,835,358 $ 496,706,543
RRTPO - DRPT Transit Revenues2 TIMEBAND 4 FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 Section 5303 Section 5307/5340 Section 5339 Section 5310 DRPT Capital MTTF (GRTC portion) $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 $ 3,032,442 Flexible STP & Equity Bonus (GRTC Portion) $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 $ 1,111,533 Special Projects and Paratransit, TDM & TMP $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 $ 28,266 Total DRPT Revenue Available for plan2040 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 4,172,241 $ 25,033,446
RRTPO - DRPT Rail Revenues3
Total FY 35-40 Revenues $ 583,675,338
1 VDOT Revenue Projections provided to RRTPO on October 30, 2015 2 DRPT Revenue Projections provided to RRTPO on December 10, 2015 3 DRPT Revenue Projections for Rail not provided to RRTPO Allocation Guidelines Federal regulations do not require An element of plan2040 is a minor projects to be individu- master list of projects that the In addition to the revenue ally listed in plan2040. Federal region anticipates it can fund over projections, staff worked with the regulations do require, however, the long term. Projects listed in MTP AC to develop Allocation that plan2040 specifically list the TIP must be in conformance Guidelines for each project type all projects that are “regionally with plan2040 (i.e., specifically in the Fiscally Constrained significant” (i.e., projects on a listed if regionally significant Plan. The Allocation Guidelines facility that serves regional needs or accounted for as part of the provide funding levels for each and would normally be included financial capacity analysis if a project type by the four time in the modeling of the area’s minor project or program). bands, starting with the first time transportation network, such as band (Fiscal Year 2017-2022) new roads, additional lanes, and Funding resources and esti- as the baseline from the current interchanges. mates for projects contained in Six-Year Improvement Program. plan2040 are not required to By identifying current funding At a minimum, all roads function- be identical to those in the TIP. levels, staff and the MTP AC ally classified as principal arterial It is reasonable to expect that focused on developing the fourth or higher, and all fixed guide-way many of the projects in plan2040 time band (FY 2035-2040) and transit facilities that offer a may be funded using different using the second and third time significant alternative to regional sources of funds when actually bands as a straight line projection highway travel are considered implemented in the TIP. Good to the fourth time band. regionally significant). Therefore, planning practice is to make the surpluses shown were not plan2040 funding and funding The following figures show the used in constraining plan2040 sources as realistic as possible plan2040 Allocation Guidelines and are assumed to be available based on current planning used as part of the development for these types of minor, non-re- assumptions. plan2040 and its of the Constrained Projects List. gional improvement projects. many components are planning The funding levels helped identify level estimates. The metropolitan the potential number of projects Constrained Projects transportation plan is updated that could be funded as an initial List (at a minimum) every four years; point, and enabled modifications as better planning assumptions by staff and the MTP AC. The plan2040, the Six Year are available for long-range Allocation Guidelines were Improvement Program (SYIP) planning, they are included in recommended by the MTP AC at and the Transportation the updates. For the Richmond their February 16, 2016 meeting Improvement Program (TIP) region, our EPA designation as and approved by the TPO Board are similar documents in that an attainment area has extended at their April 7, 2016 meeting. they all show projects which can the update cycle to every five be reasonably expected in the The initial cost estimates for years. future. The connection between the projects were provided by Cost Inflation Factor plan2040, the SYIP, and the VDOT in conjunction with TIP is in the project lists. Major As noted previously, the FAST the local jurisdictions. The projects (those impacting air Act legislation requires that full Constrained Projects List quality conformity) included in projects and programs described is provided at the end of this the TIP must also be included in in plan2040 must be finan- section for further information the SYIP and plan2040. cially constrained. plan2040 Plan Constrained Fiscally and detail. projects and programs also must account for costs in terms of 65 year-of-expenditure dollars (in presented. The Timeband 1 other words, inflationary cost Allocation Guidelines were increases must be accounted not used to define project type for). The plan2040 Constrained parameters for the Timeband 1 Projects List, presented later in of the Constrained Projects List. this section, complies with this The Timeband 1 Constrained requirement. Projects List is consistent with projects in the FY17-22 SYIP As allowed by the FAST Act, as approved by the CTB on June projects in the outer years of 14, 2016, and is constrained to plan2040 can be grouped into the VDOT and DRPT revenue “timebands.” This enables an projections for Timeband 1. average inflation rate to be applied to projects that are grouped into one of the time bands. It also considerably eases the ability to estimate start and end dates for specific projects. In consultation with VDOT, a compound annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent per year was applied to initial cost estimates to arrive at an infla- tion-adjusted estimate of project construction costs. For the first timeband, projects contained in the adopted FY17-22 SYIP (adopted June 2016) comprise of the list of projects, and for projects included in the adopted SYIP, the esti- mated project costs are shown in year-of-expenditure dollars, so an inflation factor is not neces- sary. The remaining three time bands have an average inflation factor applied. Please note that the first timeband in the Constrained Projects List reflects the FY17-22 SYIP due to the timing of its approval during the devel- opment process of plan2040. Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally The FY16-21 SYIP is still the foundation for the development of the allocation guidelines 66 fig. 5.5.
plan2040 allocation guidelines- timeband 1 Timeband 1 (FY 17 - 22) Allocation Amount Allocation Guideline Allocation Amount Allocation Guideline Project Type (VDOT Revenues) (VDOT Revenues) (DRPT Revenues) (DRPT Revenues) Bike/Ped $ 24,089,493 5.11% $ - 0% $ 24,089,493 Bridge $ 68,209,523 14.48% $ - 0% $ 68,209,523 Highway $ 235,295,476 49.95% $ - 0% $ 235,295,476 Intersection $ 24,545,785 5.21% $ - 0% $ 24,545,785 Intermodal $ 681,033 0.14% $ 2,761,701 3.26% $ 3,442,734 Public Transit $ 1,543,220 0.33% $ 39,333,053 46.42% $ 40,876,274 Rail $ 10,624,112 2.26% $ 42,638,665 50.32% $ 53,262,777 State of Good Repair $ 58,379,495 12.39% $ - 0 $ 58,379,495 Other $ 47,658,676 10.12% $ - 0 $ 47,658,676 Total $ 471,026,812 100.00% $ 84,733,420 100.00%
Timeband 1 (FY 17 - 22) Other Bike/Ped
State of Good Repair Bridge
Rail
Public Transit
Intermodal Highway Intersection
Note: Allocation Guideline percentages for Timeband 1 are based on actual allocations to RRTPO projects in VDOT and DRPT FY2016-2021 SYIP. This guideline was used as a baseline to inform the MTP Advisory Committee development of Allocation Guidelines for Timebands 2-4, which were approved by the RRTPO on April 7, 2016. The Timeband 1 Allocation Guidelines were not used to define project type parameters for the Timeband 1 Constrained Projects List. The Timeband 1 Constrained Project list is consistent with projects in the FY2017-2022 SYIP as approved by the CTB on June 14, 2016, and is constrained to the VDOT and DRPT revenue projections for Timeband 1. 67 Fiscally Constrained Plan 68 Fiscally Constrained Plan fig. 5.6.
plan2040 allocation guidelines- timeband 2 plan2040 Allocation Guidelines: Timeband 2 (FY 23 - 28) Allocation Amount Allocation Guideline Allocation Amount Allocation Guideline Project Type (VDOT Revenues) (VDOT Revenues) (DRPT Revenues) (DRPT Revenues) Bike/Ped $ 30,549,263 5.08% $ 30,549,263 Bridge $ 90,505,199 15.05% $ 90,505,199 Highway $ 300,501,314 49.97% $ 300,501,314 Intersection $ 24,896,447 4.14% $ 24,896,447 Intermodal $ 3,608,181 0.60% $ 3,608,181 Public Transit $ 11,365,769 1.89% $ 25,033,446 100% $ 36,399,215 Rail $ 19,063,221 3.17% $ 19,063,221 State of Good Repair $ 69,758,160 11.60% $ 69,758,160 Other $ 51,115,893 8.50% $ 51,115,893 Total $ 601,363,447 100.00% $ 25,033,446 100.00%
Timeband 2 (FY 23 - 28)
Other Bike/Ped
State of Good Repair Bridge
Rail
Public Transit
Intermodal
Intersection Highway
Note: Allocation guideline percentages for Timeband 2 as approved by RRTPO on April 7, 2016. Timeband 2 period amended from FY 22-27 to FY 23-28 to be approved by RRTPO on March 2, 2017. The pie chart is based on total percentage allocations including both VDOT and DRPT revenues fig. 5.7.
plan2040 allocation guidelines- timeband 3 plan2040 Allocation Guidelines: Timeband 3 (FY 29 - 34)
Allocation Amount Allocation Guideline Allocation Amount Allocation Guideline Project Type (VDOT Revenues) (VDOT Revenues) (DRPT Revenues) (DRPT Revenues) Bike/Ped $ 29,009,262 5.04% $ 29,009,262 Bridge $ 89,963,248 15.63% $ 89,963,248 Highway $ 287,675,184 49.98% $ 287,675,184 Intersection $ 17,670,324 3.07% $ 17,670,324 Intermodal $ 6,043,596 1.05% $ 6,043,596 Public Transit $ 19,799,973 3.44% $ 25,033,446 100% $ 44,833,419 Rail $ 23,541,247 4.09% $ 23,541,247 State of Good Repair $ 62,162,705 10.80% $ 62,162,705 Other $ 39,715,061 6.90% $ 39,715,061 Total $ 575,580,600 100.00% $ 25,033,446 100.00%
Timeband 3 (FY 29 - 34)
Other Bike/Ped
State of Good Repair Bridge Rail
Public Transit
Intermodal Highway Intersection
Note: Allocation guideline percentages for Timeband 3 as approved by RRTPO on April 7, 2016. Timeband 3 period amended from FY 28-33 to FY 29-34 to be approved by RRTPO on March 2, 2017. The pie chart is based on total percentage allocations including both VDOT and DRPT revenues 69 Fiscally Constrained Plan 70 Fiscally Constrained Plan fig. 5.8.
plan2040 allocation guidelines- timeband 4 plan2040 Allocation Guidelines: Timeband 4 (FY 35 - 40) Allocation Amount Allocation Guideline Allocation Amount Allocation Guideline Project Type (VDOT Revenues) (VDOT Revenues) (DRPT Revenues) (DRPT Revenues) Bike/Ped $ 27,932,095 5.00% Bridge $ 90,499,987 16.20% Highway $ 279,320,946 50.00% Intersection $ 11,172,838 2.00% Intermodal $ 8,379,628 1.50% Public Transit $ 27,932,095 5.00% $ 25,033,446 100% Rail $ 27,932,095 5.00% State of Good Repair $ 55,864,189 10.00% Other $ 29,608,020 5.30% $ 558,641,892 100.00% $ 25,033,446 100.00%
Timeband 4 (FY 35 - 40)
Other Bike/Ped
State of Good Repair
Bridge Rail Public Transit
Intermodal
Intersection Highway
Note: Allocation guideline percentages for Timeband 4 as approved by RRTPO on April 7, 2016. Timeband 4 period amended from FY 34-40 to FY 35-40 to be approved by RRTPO on March 2, 2017. The pie chart is based on total percentage allocations including both VDOT and DRPT revenues Project Ranking and for plan2040. Localities and The raw scores from the ranking Selection Process State and local transit agencies process then were weighted were requested to review the using the newly developed eval- Prior to developing the list of initial project lists and add or uation criteria based on the nine projects, the MTP AC recom- remove projects from the list as Goals. The development of the mended a methodology to necessary. The scale and type of plan2040 Goals include federal account for the various available projects eligible to be specifically planning factors and TPO funding sources and to link listed in the plan are detailed in performance measures to ensure projects to the appropriate source the plan2040 Project Inclusion that the initial ranked list would of funds. This methodology was Criteria, focusing on projects of feature projects that aligned with approved by the RRTPO Board regional significance and those both federal and state transpor- at their April 7, 2016 meeting potentially receiving federal tation objectives. and works as follows: funding. The Project Inclusion • Transportation facilities Criteria for the plan2040 The preliminary results of this maintenance cost ranking process were reviewed by (approximately 74 percent Constrained Projects List is of projected revenue) is available in the Appendix of the the MTP AC at their February subtracted from the total plan2040 Project Evaluation 2, 2016 meeting and provided available funds. This is in Tool Methodology Report at the direction in the refinement of the keeping with state law which Constrained Projects List. The requires assigning top priority end of this section, as reviewed to the maintenance of existing and approved at the August 26, list includes the following: roads. 2015 MTP AC meeting. Current state • All projects contained in the The plan2040 project selection (FY2017-2022) Six- adopted SYIP are assumed to be completed as soon process followed the recom- Year Improvement as possible. The total cost mendation of the 2035 LRTP Program (SYIP) and of these projects, including Advisory Committee and revised TPO Transportation preliminary engineering, right- the project application and eval- of-way and construction (as Improvement Program uation criteria to reflect the nine shown in the adopted SYIP) is (TIP) projects subtracted from the revenue Goals of plan2040, which closely forecast for the FY16-21 time align with federal and state trans- Newly submitted band. The balance to complete portation goals. The nine Goals for these projects after FY21 candidate projects is then subtracted from the serve as an organizing framework revenue forecast for the FY22- and assess the degree to which (some carried from 27 time band. This is in keeping any given candidate project plan2035) with the accepted practice of will advance one or multiple assigning top funding priority to the projects already shown Goals. TPO staff developed the Unconstrained Projects in the adopted SYIP plan2040 Project Evaluation Tool (projects that did not Methodology Report to provide receive any funding) • Remaining funds from the transparency in the evaluation of revenue forecast are available to fund new projects beginning project applications and scoring Local/Private Projects in FY-2022 weights. The report is included (do not use federal or at the Appendix of the plan2040 state funds, but must be Summary Document for further
The plan2035 list of projects was included for air quality Plan Constrained Fiscally information. used as a starting point to develop conformity purposes) the necessary initial project lists 71 Local/Private Project Lists projects as the plan2040 Additional transportation system Constrained Projects List. improvements are included in As part of the March 2, 2017 plan2040 besides those funded amendment to the plan2040 through federal and state document, the RRTPO highway sources. For instance, approved a revised Constrained Local/Private funded projects Projects List, which included also are included in plan2040, the transfer of two projects to with a documentation of funding the Unconstrained Projects availability from such sources as List. The revisions were a result developer funds and cash proffers, of the modifications to the first public/private partnerships, bond Timeband throughout all compo- issues, and local general funds. nents of the Fiscally Constrained Demonstration of Fiscal Plan to ensure consistency. Constraint Details of the amendment and In plan2040, $7.8 billion of its changes may be found in the forecasted revenue (FY2017- Amendments Section in the 2040) has been reserved and Summary Document Appendix taken off the top for anticipated of the plan2040 document. maintenance needs across the The SYIP and TIP projects are Richmond region. For advancing shown on the maps by quad- new projects, plan2040 commits rants. The Constrained Projects approximately $2.36 billion in List maps are shown from the funding from FY2017-2040 to regional view. be resourced by $2.37 billion of forecasted revenue available from FY2017-2040. The total allocated to projects and region- wide initiatives in plan2040 is less than the forecasted revenues to the Richmond region; there- fore, fiscal constrained is demonstrated in plan2040.
Approved Fiscally Constrained Projects List
At its March 15, 2016 meeting, the MTP AC recommended the list of proposed projects to the RRTPO for review and approval. The RRTPO took action at its
Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally April 7, 2016 meeting to approve the MTP AC’s list of proposed
72 $38,000 $154,000 $533,000 $310,000 $600,000 $172,000 $246,000 $443,000 $554,000 $820,000 $469,000 $900,000 $126,000 $900,000 $400,000 $200,000 $622,000 $627,000 $550,000 $293,000 $540,000 $122,000 $550,000 $815,000 $712,000 $127,000 $890,000 $267,000 $126,000 $170,000 $599,000 $163,000 $231,000 $897,000 $971,000 $318,000 $565,000 $752,000 $107,000 $294,000 $400,000 $814,000 $2,014,000 $1,100,000 $2,500,000 $1,428,000 $3,125,000 $1,480,000 $1,615,000 $1,351,000 $6,019,000 $2,135,000 $3,600,000 $1,100,000 $8,435,000 $15,593,000 Total Allocations Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,000 $533,000 $310,000 $425,000 $172,000 $246,000 $443,000 $554,000 $820,000 $900,000 $126,000 $270,000 $400,000 $200,000 $622,000 $627,000 $550,000 $293,000 $1,000,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $3,125,000 $1,485,000 $1,000,000 $5,400,000 FY17-22 Allocations FY17-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,000 $815,000 $815,000 $469,000 $540,000 $122,000 $550,000 $175,000 $712,000 $127,000 $890,000 $267,000 $126,000 $170,000 $599,000 $163,000 $130,000 $630,000 $351,000 $231,000 $619,000 $897,000 $971,000 $318,000 $565,000 $752,000 $107,000 $294,000 $400,000 $814,000 $2,500,000 $1,428,000 $1,480,000 $1,014,000 $2,135,000 $3,600,000 $8,435,000 $15,593,000 Previous Allocations Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Project Type Ashland Richmond Richmond Richmond Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Hanover County Hanover New County Kent Charles City County City Charles Charles City County City Charles Charles City County City Charles Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield Jurisdiction HORNER PARK TRAIL CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK CONSTRUCT RTE 651 - ADD SIDEWALK RTE 271 - ADD SIDEWALK RTE 360 - ADD SIDEWALK RTE 604 - ADD SIDEWALK SHORT PUMP PARKTRAILS WATTS LN - SIDEWALK ADD RTE 155 - 155 RTE CONSTRUCT TRAIL WISTAR - RD SIDEWALK ADD RTE 155 - SHARED-USE PATH BEULAH - RD SIDEWALK ADD CONSTRUCT NEW SIDEWALK NEW CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK NEW CONSTRUCT RTE 609 - INSTALL SIDEWALK N RIDGE - RD SIDEWALK ADD ASHLAND TROLLEY LINE TRAIL ROUTE 618 - MULTI-USE TRAIL GLENSIDE - DR SIDEWALK ADD ST. CLAIRE LN - SIDEWALK ADD LABURNUM AVENUE SIDEWALK RTE 10 - UPGRADE CROSSWALKS SIDEWALK NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN PATH AND LIGHTING OLD NUCKOLS - RD SIDEWALK ADD PRINCE HENRY - DR SIDEWALK ADD JOHN ROLFE PKWY - SIDEWALK ADD CITY WIDE SIDEWALKIMPROVEMENTS RTE 662 (SPRING 662 RTE RUN ROAD) SIDEWALK RTE 654 (BAILEY BRIDGE ROAD) SIDEWALK VA CAPITAL TRAIL - HENRICO RIVERFRONT RIDGEFIELD PKWY - SIDEWALK CONSTRUCT PKWY RIDGEFIELD RTE 5 - 5 RTE SCENIC BYWAYS - INTERPRETIVE SITE RTE 5 - 5 RTE VIRGINIA CAPITAL TRAIL - PARKPHASE RTE 10 - PROVIDE BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS RTE 5 - 5 RTE VIRGINIA CAPITAL TRAIL - VARINA PHASE RTE 641 - ADD SIDEWALK& PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RTE 1703 - PED SIGNAL/SIDEWALKINSTALLATION QUIOCASSIN ROAD - CONSTRUCT NEW SIDEWALK - NEW QUIOCASSIN CONSTRUCT ROAD RTE 678 - CONSTRUCT CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK GUTTER - CURB, CONSTRUCT 678 RTE & SIDEWALK GUTTER - CURB, CONSTRUCT 144 RTE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS CITYWIDE NEW KENT COUNTY - SIGNAGE FOR 7 BICYCLE RTES BICYCLE 7 FOR - COUNTY SIGNAGE KENT NEW LOWER FALLINGCREEK GREENWAY ENHANCEMENT RTE 73 - INSTALL SIDEWALKAND CURB AND GUTTER INSTALL SIDEWALK - HOPKINS ROAD - CHESTERFIELD ROAD - HOPKINS SIDEWALK INSTALL RTE 250 - 250 RTE PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS INSTALL SIDEWALK- DEER RUN ROAD - CHESTERFIELD SHADY GROVE OLD RD, NUCKOLS - RD SIDEWALK ADD PARHAM RD TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SIDEWALK PROJECT SIDEWALK SIGNAL AND TRAFFIC RD PARHAM RTE 4700 - CONSTRUCT CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK plan2040 Constrained Projects List: Timeband 1 (FY2017-2022Richmond in Transit DRPT Region) plan2040 List: and Projects Constrained SYIP RTE 147 - 147 RTE INSTALL PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING- HUGUENOT BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS - VARIOUS LOCATIONS - VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS & SIGNAL PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK/PEDESTRIAN ACCOMODATIONS - RTE 144 CHESTERFIELD CO PATRICK HENRY- ROAD TO REVOLUTION TRAIL, SIGNAGE & BROCHURES RTE 1 - 1 RTE UPGRADE SIGNALS TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATION Description Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally 54758 86280 81762 97688 16086 91207 93386 96733 103393 105660 T17814 T17818 T17820 102507 106296 107085 108647 102957 104285 104287 104288 104291 104662 107082 107130 108978 109082 108640 108642 108643 108645 108696 100561 103665 104277 104665 104666 104880 104881 105647 105657 105658 106299 106468 107037 107173 107174 107175 107176 107177 109084 109190 109194 108650 108653 108713 UPC fig. 5.9. plan2040 constrained projects list - timeband 1 73 $237,000 $150,000 $830,000 $190,000 $400,000 $973,000 $300,000 $650,000 $600,000 $923,000 $601,000 $500,000 $571,000 $450,000 $8,252,000 $2,433,000 $2,224,000 $2,077,000 $2,500,000 $1,300,000 $1,940,000 $1,200,000 $6,854,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,453,000 $1,502,000 $1,450,000 $3,263,000 $3,356,000 $2,520,000 $2,386,000 $3,114,000 $3,270,000 $1,925,000 $3,800,000 $9,382,000 $9,535,000 $1,791,000 $2,200,000 $2,099,000 $2,100,000 $1,500,000 $2,028,000 $6,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,900,000 $11,819,000 $15,120,000 $19,062,000 $30,167,000 $30,156,000 $18,801,000 $14,799,000 Total Allocations Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $854,000 $300,000 $650,000 $359,000 $600,000 $923,000 $2,800,000 $4,281,000 $3,000,000 $1,365,000 $1,000,000 $3,421,000 $2,234,000 $2,504,000 $2,252,000 $9,942,000 $3,264,000 $1,198,000 $3,800,000 $2,182,000 $6,000,000 $1,400,000 $2,942,000 $28,906,000 $17,638,000 FY17-22 Allocations FY17-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $973,000 $973,000 $450,000 $571,000 $450,000 $237,000 $150,000 $830,000 $190,000 $400,000 $453,000 $137,000 $852,000 $862,000 $727,000 $601,000 $500,000 $958,000 $2,099,000 $2,099,000 $9,019,000 $2,433,000 $2,224,000 $3,971,000 $2,077,000 $2,500,000 $1,300,000 $1,940,000 $1,200,000 $6,854,000 $2,146,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,029,000 $2,520,000 $2,027,000 $1,250,000 $9,382,000 $7,353,000 $1,791,000 $1,163,000 $2,200,000 $2,100,000 $1,500,000 $2,028,000 $1,100,000 $15,120,000 $15,120,000 $14,799,000 $15,641,000 $20,225,000 Previous Allocations Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Project Type Ashland Ashland Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover Charles City County City Charles County City Charles Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond Jurisdiction MULTI-USE TRAIL REHABILITATE BRIDGE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 7TH ST - REPLACE BRIDGE 5TH ST - REPLACE BRIDGE RTE 1 - WIDEN TO 6 LANES RTE 301 - REPLACE BRIDGE RTE 615 - REPLACE BRIDGE CANNON CREEK GREENWAY RTE 672 - MAJOR WIDENING RTE 609 - RECONSTRUCTION RTE 607 - MINOR WIDENING RTE 720 - WIDEN TO 4 LANES FLOYD AVE BIKE BOULEVARD 1ST & 2ND STREET BIKE LANES CITYWIDE - INSTALL SIDEWALK RTE 33 - REHABILITATE BRIDGE RTE 360 - REHAB MAYO BRIDGE INSTALL BIKE LANES - CITYWIDE BIKE SHARE SYSTEM - CITYWIDE RTE 625 - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT IMPROVE SIDEWALKS - CITYWIDE SIDEWALKS IMPROVE RTE 60 - BRIDGE REHABILITATION RTE 5 (MAIN 5 RTE ST) - REPLACE BRIDGE ROUTE 360 - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 29TH STREET BIKE-WALKBOULEVARD RMA PLAZA BRIDGE OVER EXPRESSWAY LOMBARDY ST - BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS LYNNHAVEN ST - BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE SIDEWALK - VARIOUS LOCATIONS - VARIOUS SIDEWALK IMPROVE TERMINAL AVE/E BELT BLVD - SIDEWALK ADD RICHMOND CANAL WALK- CONSTRUCT TRAIL INSTALL SIDEWALK & -INSTALL CROSSWALK SIDEWALK CITYWIDE RTE 636 - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (FED ID 5271) MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENT TO FRANKLIN ST FRANKLIN TO IMPROVEMENT MULTIMODAL RTE 1 - BR REPL & MOD LTL @ DSCR (FED ID 4896) RTE 689 - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OVER LITTLE RIVER RTE 651 (GEORGETOWN 651 RTE RD) - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BRIDGE (FED ID 9578) RTE 715 OVER NEWFOUND RIVER BRIDGE (FED ID 9492) RTE. 617 OVER SOUTH ANNA RIVER CONDUCT PLANNING & ENGINEERING FOR MAYO BRIDGE MAYO FOR CONDUCT PLANNING& ENGINEERING INSTALL PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS - DISTRICTWIDE RTE 95 - 95 RTE INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AT54 RTE MILL AND OVERLAY BELVIDERE ST OVER CSXT AND BROOKRD plan2040 Constrained Projects List: Timeband 1 (FY2017-2022Richmond in Transit DRPT Region) plan2040 List: and Projects Constrained SYIP RTE 64 - REPLACE BRIDGES OVER RTE 156 (FED ID 9760 & 9762) RTE 802/I95 - REPL BRIDGE, RAMPS & AIRPARKRD (FED ID 9596) RTE195 - REPL BRIDGE OVER RTECSX, 76, RAMP S (FED ID 21552) CITY OF RICHMOND - SRTS - FOX ES/MUNFORD ES - BIKE/PED IMP - BIKE/PED ES -ES/MUNFORD FOX - SRTS OF RICHMOND CITY PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTONS - DW RTE 64-REPLACE BRIDGES OVER RTE 33 NINE MILE RD(FED ID 9756) ARRA CHARLES CITY/HENRICO VA 5 CAPITAL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION RTE 604 - REPLACE BRIDGE OVER TOMAHAWK CREEK(FED ID 30028) CITY OF RICHMOND BIKE SHARED LANE PVMT MARKINGS-BICYCLE RT 1 ROAD DIETS - IMPROVE BICYCLE ACCOMDATIONS - CITY OF RICHMOND - CITY ACCOMDATIONS BICYCLE - IMPROVE DIETS ROAD CITY OF RICHMOND BIKE SHARED LANE PAVEMENT MARKINGS-E/WRTE LANDSCAPE, CONST SIDEWALK, CROSSWALK & LIGHTING CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS CONST SIDEWALK, LANDSCAPE, Description Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally 8651 93199 17959 56419 15988 51261 82378 82399 90347 97565 82110 93087 59166 85337 106246 106240 102962 106215 T17824 T17827 T11964 T11967 107083 100490 100491 103899 104215 104218 105209 105235 105649 105680 105709 105889 107103 107104 107111 109294 109295 101243 103469 105107 104274 105141 108631 108712 102961 102963 104216 104217 104887 104888 105678 107108 107867 104290 UPC fig. 5.10. plan2040 constrained projects list - timeband 1 74 $62,000 $87,000 $63,000 $615,000 $500,000 $443,000 $315,000 $619,000 $220,000 $767,000 $869,000 $308,000 $720,000 $835,000 $2,019,000 $2,011,000 $6,219,000 $1,100,000 $1,438,000 $2,952,000 $4,019,000 $1,265,000 $8,000,000 $3,284,000 $4,035,000 $1,500,000 $9,670,000 $6,400,000 $2,500,000 $6,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,300,000 $9,500,000 $4,270,000 $2,535,000 $3,088,000 $1,355,000 $7,246,000 $2,583,000 $6,898,000 $2,500,000 $15,320,000 $12,500,000 $54,192,000 $17,002,000 $17,433,000 $11,038,000 $16,764,000 $14,164,000 $13,290,000 Total Allocations Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,000 $531,000 $615,000 $767,000 $869,000 $308,000 $900,000 $720,000 $308,000 $126,000 $1,388,000 $2,100,000 $2,200,000 $1,100,000 $1,438,000 $3,500,000 $9,670,000 $6,400,000 $9,500,000 $4,270,000 $3,993,000 $8,780,000 $1,355,000 $4,300,000 $32,932,000 $10,538,000 FY17-22 Allocations FY17-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,000 $63,000 $87,000 $631,000 $500,000 $443,000 $315,000 $619,000 $220,000 $500,000 $835,000 $3,284,000 $3,284,000 $8,990,000 $1,480,000 $4,019,000 $2,952,000 $4,019,000 $1,265,000 $4,500,000 $4,035,000 $1,500,000 $2,500,000 $6,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,300,000 $7,984,000 $2,535,000 $2,188,000 $6,938,000 $2,583,000 $6,772,000 $2,500,000 $14,164,000 $14,164,000 $13,220,000 $12,500,000 $21,260,000 $17,002,000 $13,440,000 Previous Allocations Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Project Type Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico Henrico County Henrico Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover Goochland County Goochland County Goochland County Goochland Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield Jurisdiction ADD TURN LANES RT 10 - WIDENING RTE 360 WIDENING RTE 360 - WIDENING RTE 360 - WIDENING RTE 2380 - NEWSIGNAL RTE 672 - ROUNDABOUT RTE 654 - SPOT WIDENING RTE 711 - PAVE SHOULDER RTE 604 - INSTALL SIGNALS RTE 1502 - SPOT WIDENING RTE 10 - WIDEN TO 6 LANES RTE 60 - WIDEN TO 6 LANES RTE 647 - RECONSTRUCTION RTE 655 - MAJOR WIDENING RTE 711 - MAJOR WIDENING RTE 663 - RECONSTRUCTION RTE 651 - RECONSTRUCTION RTE 649 - RECONSTRUCTION RTE 641 - RECONSTRUCTION RTE 720 - MAJOR WIDENING RTE 641 - RECONSTRUCTION RTE 649 - MINOR WIDENING RTE 604 - REPLACE GUARDRAILS RTE 95 - 95 RTE INSTALL BARRIER SERVICE #HB2.FY17 RTE 6 - INSTALL SIGNAL RTE 54 - INSTALL FLASHING SIGNALS FLASHING - INSTALL 54 RTE RTE 652 - CONSTRUCT ROUNDABOUT RTE 604 - CONSTRUCT ROUNDABOUT POLE GREEN RD WIDENING - ONLY WIDENING PE RD GREEN POLE WALTON PARK LANE IMPROVEMENTS THREE CHOPT ROAD -- ONLY WIDENING PE CHOPT ROAD THREE RTE 147 (HUGUENOT 147 RTE RD) - SPOT WIDENING RTE 638 - CONSTRUCT LTL & ADD SB REC. LN RTE 7555 - LABURNUM AVENUE - WIDENING RTE 360 - WIDENINGFROM 4 TO 6 & LANES8 #HB2.FY17 RTE 64 - INSTALL SIGNAL AT RTE 623 RTE 9999 - DABBS HOUSE RD; RECONSTRUCTION RTE 656 - 656 RTE INSTALL LEFT TURN LANE ONTO 813 RTE RTE 618 - RECONSTRUCT SHOULDER AND DITCHES RTE 9999 (THREE CHOPT ROAD) WIDEN TO 4 LANES RTE 9999 (THREE CHOPT ROAD) WIDEN TO 4 LANES #HB2.FY17 RTE 656 - SLIDINGHILL ROAD CORRIDOR RTE 627 - 627 RTE MEADOWBRIDGE ROAD - RECONSTRUCTION #HB2.FY17 RTE 95 - IMPROVE INTERCHANGE AT RTE 10 RTE 288 - IMPROVE INTERCHANGE AT RTE 360 (PE ONLY) #HB2.FY17 RTE 288 - IMPROVE INTERCHANGE AT RTE 250 plan2040 Constrained Projects List: Timeband 1 (FY2017-2022Richmond in Transit DRPT Region) plan2040 List: and Projects Constrained SYIP RTE 638 - EXTEND ATLEE RD TO CONNECT TO ATLEE STATION RD #HB2.FY17 RTE 10 (BERMUDA TRIANGLE RD TO MEADOWVILLE RD) RTE 9999 - SADLER RD; WIDEN & RECONSTRUCT; FED ESCROWPROJ Description Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally 17768 18122 60933 17179 90346 97687 98236 13551 71354 77121 16153 50525 50528 50529 60934 104286 T17414 107086 107087 107088 107089 108638 108639 108641 108644 101020 102945 102952 102959 104289 104862 104884 104889 104890 105673 105674 105676 106238 106536 107059 107084 107868 109313 109315 109317 104957 108636 107071 109260 108654 UPC fig. 5.11. plan2040 constrained projects list - timeband 1 75 $115,000 $417,000 $281,000 $784,000 $150,000 $639,000 $260,000 $870,000 $370,000 $920,000 $410,000 $500,000 $540,000 $700,000 $850,000 $920,000 $180,000 $805,000 $4,100,000 $1,121,000 $7,003,000 $1,415,000 $7,892,000 $5,015,000 $1,585,000 $2,250,000 $1,200,000 $4,850,000 $1,750,000 $1,000,000 $6,312,000 $3,148,000 $2,720,000 $5,783,000 $2,436,000 $9,192,000 $2,257,000 $6,490,000 $1,070,000 $1,150,000 $2,960,000 $2,168,000 $4,184,000 $1,543,000 $2,050,000 $15,770,000 $59,910,000 $18,179,000 $15,660,000 $14,029,000 $12,701,000 $10,229,000 $28,043,000 $37,229,000 Total Allocations Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $420,000 $500,000 $5,600,000 $9,800,000 $3,650,000 $2,624,000 $1,415,000 $2,050,000 $7,300,000 $1,750,000 $6,312,000 $2,498,000 $2,170,000 $4,933,000 $2,436,000 $9,192,000 $2,100,000 $1,070,000 $1,150,000 $2,960,000 $2,050,000 $15,477,000 $10,229,000 $28,043,000 FY17-22 Allocations FY17-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,000 $281,000 $870,000 $920,000 $180,000 $805,000 $450,000 $115,000 $417,000 $784,000 $150,000 $639,000 $260,000 $370,000 $920,000 $410,000 $500,000 $540,000 $700,000 $850,000 $650,000 $550,000 $850,000 $5,015,000 $5,015,000 $1,585,000 $2,257,000 $4,390,000 $2,168,000 $1,121,000 $4,379,000 $2,702,000 $7,892,000 $6,729,000 $2,250,000 $1,200,000 $4,850,000 $1,000,000 $4,184,000 $1,043,000 $36,809,000 $36,809,000 $10,170,000 $50,110,000 $13,610,000 $12,701,000 Previous Allocations Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Intermodal Intermodal Intermodal Project Type Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico New County Kent Powhatan County Powhatan County Powhatan Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond Jurisdiction SIGNAL SYSTEM SIGNAL BERKLEY PROJECT RTE 1 - MAJOR WIDENING SHOCKOE STREET REVERSAL FRANKLIN ST - STREETSCAPE RTE 360 - MAJOR WIDENING RTE 155 - WIDEN SHOULDERS COMMERCE ROAD - WIDENING SADLER RD - RECONSTRUCTION HSIP DISTRICTWIDE RICHMOND JARVIS - RD IMPROVE DRAINAGE FRANKLIN ST - RECONSTRUCTION EAST 37TH ST - RECONSTRUCTION RTE 5 (MAIN 5 RTE STREET) - NEWROAD WEST CLAY ST -LIGHTING ST IMPROVE CLAY WEST RIVERSIDE DR - INSTALL GUARDRAIL WILLOW -DRAINAGE OAKS IMPROVE BURTWOOD LN - IMPROVE DRAINAGE SOUTH KINSLEY - IMPROVE DRAINAGE #HB2.FY17 RTE 64 - MAJOR WIDENING FOREST HILL AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS YORKTOWNAVE - IMPROVE DRAINAGE WHITEHEAD ROAD - MAJOR WIDENING JAHNKE ROAD - LANE 2 IMPROVEMENTS #HB2.FY17 RTE 95 - RECONFIGURE RAMPS #HB2.FY17 IMPROVE BROAD ST EXIT AREA RTE 711 - MAJOR WIDENING(FED ID 13865) RTE 1343 - 1343 RTE NEWROADWAY CONSTRUCTION LOCATIONS - VARIOUS DRAINAGE IMPROVE REPLACE SIGNALS - VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS - VARIOUS SIGNALS REPLACE POCAHONTAS PARKWAY - - T895 VDOT OVERSIGHT HSIP DISTRICTWIDE ROADWAY SAFETY ASSESSMENT SAFETY ROADWAY HSIP DISTRICTWIDE VIRGINIA PORT AUTHORITY - CRANE PROCUREMENT PORT OF VIRGINIA GREEN OPERATOR (GO) PROGRAM HSIP PROACTIVE SAFETY PROJECTS CITY OF RICHMOND CITY PROJECTS SAFETY HSIP PROACTIVE RTE 147 - 147 RTE HUGUENOT ROAD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS DEEPWATER TERMINAL RD - EXTEND EXISTINGROADWAY DEEPWATER TERMINAL RD - EXTEND EXISTINGROADWAY #HB2.FY17 RTE 95 - IMPROVE RAMP AREA AT FRANKLIN ST #HB2.FY17 RTE 95 - IMPROVE INTERCHANGE AT MAURY ST HSIP DISTRICTWIDE HIGH RISKRURAL ROADS - RICHMOND ROADWAY DEPARTURE COUNTERMEASURES - DISTRICTWIDE ROADWAY DEPARTURE COUNTERMEASURES - DISTRICTWIDE #HB2.FY17 RTE 95 - EXTEND NB ACCEL LANE AT BELVIDERE ST RTE 157 SPRINGFIELD 157 RTE RD TEMP. SIGNAL AT FRANCISTOWNRD plan2040 Constrained Projects List: Timeband 1 (FY2017-2022Richmond in Transit DRPT Region) plan2040 List: and Projects Constrained SYIP #HB2.FY17 RTE 95 - EXTEND NB DECEL LANE AT HERMITAGE RD DDMS AROUND RICHMOND - VARIOUS INTERSTATE LOCATIONS INTERSTATE - VARIOUS RICHMOND AROUND DDMS RTE 60 - 60 RTE CORRIDOR 64 (RTE TECH) SCC - JAMES CTY TO HENRICO #HB2.FY17 LABURNUM AVE - IMPROVE INTERCHANGE AT RTE 195 #HB2.FY17 RTE 64 - EXTEND ACCELERATION/DECELERATION LANES I-64 - WIDEN FROM 4 TO 6 LANES AND IMPROVE RTE 623 INTERCHNG SYSTEMIC UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION TREATMENTS - DISTRICTWIDE FRANKLIN STREET-UPGRADE EXIST SIGNAL, ENHANCE PVMT MARKINGS PVMT ENHANCE SIGNAL, EXIST STREET-UPGRADE FRANKLIN RICHMOND MARINE TERMINAL - INTERMODAL TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS Description Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally 8216 T6521 15959 81253 86733 70542 81373 86684 92652 86442 15954 15955 15958 19035 19036 88477 92609 104959 104664 105444 106953 107040 107042 107045 T17416 104148 107458 107459 108574 108649 101854 104281 104282 104283 104284 104882 105682 105684 105686 105687 105691 105693 105890 107109 107110 107795 107796 107797 109311 109320 109321 104891 104892 109266 UPC fig. 5.12. plan2040 constrained projects list - timeband 1 76 $0 $950,000 $415,000 $743,000 $277,000 $332,000 $600,000 $930,000 $500,000 $400,000 $260,000 $260,000 $470,000 $308,000 $295,000 $300,000 $130,000 $400,000 $250,000 $150,000 $615,000 $246,000 $246,000 $300,000 $7,535,000 $4,252,000 $5,706,000 $3,600,000 $1,900,000 $2,100,000 $2,952,000 $2,500,000 $7,880,000 $7,743,000 $7,859,000 $1,398,000 $5,935,000 $1,828,000 $2,285,000 $3,208,000 $4,483,000 $1,222,000 $1,047,000 $2,877,000 $1,081,000 $2,855,000 $3,000,000 $8,527,000 $4,563,000 $5,315,000 $3,251,000 $2,794,000 $14,000,000 $24,183,000 Total Allocations Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $250,000 $650,000 $934,000 $277,000 $332,000 $615,000 $246,000 $246,000 $3,600,000 $1,000,000 $2,100,000 $1,700,000 $2,093,000 $1,927,000 $1,120,000 $4,483,000 $5,618,000 $11,550,000 $24,051,000 FY17-22 Allocations FY17-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $700,000 $700,000 $930,000 $300,000 $132,000 $415,000 $900,000 $800,000 $743,000 $708,000 $600,000 $500,000 $310,000 $260,000 $260,000 $470,000 $308,000 $295,000 $130,000 $400,000 $250,000 $150,000 $300,000 $7,535,000 $7,535,000 $2,794,000 $4,252,000 $5,706,000 $2,302,000 $7,880,000 $5,650,000 $5,932,000 $1,398,000 $5,001,000 $2,285,000 $2,450,000 $3,208,000 $1,222,000 $1,047,000 $2,877,000 $1,081,000 $2,855,000 $3,000,000 $2,909,000 $4,563,000 $5,315,000 $3,251,000 Previous Allocations Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Project Type Ashland Ashland Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico County Henrico Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover County Hanover New County Kent New County Kent New County Kent New County Kent Powhatan County Powhatan Goochland County Goochland County Goochland County Goochland Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Chesterfield Richmond District-wide Richmond Multi-jurisdictional: Richmond MPO Richmond Multi-jurisdictional: MPO Richmond Multi-jurisdictional: Jurisdiction CRAC "CELL CRAC LOTS" RTE 606 - ROUNDABOUT RTE 95 - INSTALL ITS DEVICES RTE 60 - INTERCHANGE STUDY IMPROVE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS RTE 1 - IMPROVE INTERSECTION RTE 1 - IMPROVE INTERSECTION COMPUTERIZED SIGNAL SYSTEM RTE 54 - IMPROVE INTERSECTION RT 623 - IMPROVE INTERSECTION RTE 10 - UPGRADE SIGNALS - 4 INT RTE 623 - IMPROVE INTERSECTION RTE 641 - IMPROVE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL INSTALLATIONS REPLACE SIGNALS - 3 INTERSECTIONS RTE 250 - CONSTRUCT ROUNDABOUT RTE 249 - CONSTRUCT ROUNDABOUT I-64/ASHLAND RD INTERCHANGE IMR RTE 360 - INTERSECTION RELOCATION REPLACE EXISTING ROADWAY LIGHTING ROADWAY EXISTING REPLACE RTE 360 - INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS RTE 1 - IMPROVE INTERSECTION AT RTE 54 RTE 604 - 604 RTE CONSTRUCT PARKAND RIDE LOT INSTALL FIBER OPTIC, CCTV AND DMS - I-64 HENRICO COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM RICHMOND REGION-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS CORRIDOR 60 RTE EAST SPECIAL AREA PLAN MONUMENT AVE - IMPROVE INTERSECTION HSIP PROACTIVE SAFETY - HENRICO COUNTY HSIP SAFETY PROACTIVE RTE 64 - 64 RTE INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION STUDY CITY OF RICHMOND - FORMULA CITY PAYMENT DILL RD - INSTALL FLASHING LIGHTS AND GATES AND LIGHTS FLASHING - INSTALL RD DILL RTE 106 - ARTERIAL ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN RTE 615 (CREIGHTON RD) - IMPROVE INTERSECTION RTE 627 (POLE GREEN RD) - IMPROVE INTERSECTION CITY OF RICHMOND - SIGNAL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM - SIGNAL OF RICHMOND CITY RTE 647 (REAMS RD) - INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC CALMINGINSTALLATIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS plan2040 Constrained Projects List: Timeband 1 (FY2017-2022Richmond in Transit DRPT Region) plan2040 List: and Projects Constrained SYIP #HB2.FY17 RTE 6 PATTERSON AVE AT PARHAM RD INTERSECTION RTE 157 (SPRINGFIELD 157 RTE RD) FRANCISTOWNRD INTERSECTION IMP. ROUNDABOUT AT CHAMBERLAYNE PKY, DUVAL AND JACKSON ST. RTE 33 - 33 RTE ADD LEFT TURN LANES AT THE INTERSECTION OF 623 RTE ROUNDABOUT AT BELMONT AND W. BELMONT RD. INTERSECTION CITY OF RICHMOND - TRAFFIC CONTROL & SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS RT 627 (POLERT 627 GREEN RD) - INT IMPR (WALNUT 615 @RTE GROVE RD) RT.54-INSTALL NEW FLASHING LIGHTS & GATES ADD CWT PREDICTORS CWT ADD FLASHING NEW LIGHTS & GATES RT.54-INSTALL ELECTRONIC TOLL CUSTOMER SERV. & VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT SYS. ENFORCEMENT & VIOLATION SERV. CUSTOMER TOLL ELECTRONIC RAMPO TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING ON-CALL CONSULTANT SUPPORT CONSULTANT ON-CALL MODELING DEMAND TRAVEL RAMPO LANDSCAPE INTERSTATE I-95 GATEWAYS INTO THE CITY OF RICHMOND RELOCATE DOCK ST ROUNDABOUT AT MAIN ST W/INT IMPROVEMENTS RTE 654-UPGRADE FLASHING LIGHTS & GATES & ADD CWT PREDICTORS CWT & FLASHINGADD LIGHTS & GATES 654-UPGRADE RTE HENRICO COUNTY AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ATMS) CONSTRUCT ROUNDABOUT AT NINE MILE 25TH RD, ST. AND FARIMOUNT RTE 288/COMMONWEALTHRTE CTR PKWY & BAILEY BRIDGE CONNECTOR IMR Description Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally 13463 86357 97840 70092 77071 18962 56181 81667 97685 97686 52414 93350 80330 12945 13553 58911 84348 86683 19001 70591 70593 71786 105677 106293 101492 T17759 101021 104886 105733 107081 104275 107178 103014 104875 101023 101034 108629 108630 108652 105653 109191 109231 107047 105569 106938 107939 109261 106216 106300 107460 106217 108698 108703 108714 UPC fig. 5.13. plan2040 constrained projects list - timeband 1 77 $50,000 $400,000 $400,000 $200,000 $822,000 $275,000 $260,000 $589,000 $200,000 $156,000 $400,000 $125,000 $378,000 $300,000 $400,000 $340,000 $400,000 $228,000 $600,000 $180,000 $100,000 $9,000,000 $8,500,000 $9,000,000 $2,438,000 $5,500,000 $1,500,000 $4,485,000 $2,918,000 $2,259,000 $3,494,000 $6,500,000 $1,500,000 $4,000,000 $1,017,000 $4,446,000 $5,300,000 $3,500,000 $1,195,000 $3,786,000 $3,196,000 $2,275,000 $6,020,000 $10,000,000 $13,964,000 $14,785,000 $11,310,000 $12,876,000 $14,124,000 $84,733,420 $41,904,000 Total Allocations Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 $822,000 $589,000 $500,000 $156,000 $6,033,000 $4,401,000 $2,438,000 $1,822,000 $8,252,000 $6,500,000 $1,500,000 $4,000,000 $1,006,000 $1,450,000 $5,000,000 $6,020,000 $82,269,232 $555,760,232 FY17-22 Allocations FY17-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $125,000 $125,000 $378,000 $300,000 $400,000 $400,000 $200,000 $275,000 $260,000 $200,000 $400,000 $400,000 $340,000 $400,000 $228,000 $600,000 $180,000 $100,000 $3,494,000 $3,494,000 $4,624,000 $1,017,000 $4,446,000 $5,300,000 $8,500,000 $9,000,000 $5,500,000 $7,931,000 $4,599,000 $4,485,000 $2,918,000 $2,208,000 $9,488,000 $3,500,000 $1,195,000 $3,786,000 $2,696,000 $2,275,000 $13,118,000 $13,118,000 $10,000,000 $14,785,000 $36,904,000 Previous Allocations Total FY17-22 Allocations Rail Rail Rail Rail Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other State of Good Repair Good State of Repair Good State of State of Good Repair Good State of State of Good Repair Good State of State of Good Repair Good State of State of Good Repair Good State of Public Transportation Public Public Transportation Public Transportation Public Transportation Public Transportation Public Transportation Public Transportation Public Public Transportation Public Public Transportation Public Public Transportation Public Transportation Public Transportation Public Transportation Public Public Transportation Public Project Type Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Henrico CountyHenrico Repair Good State of Henrico CountyHenrico Repair Good State of Hanover CountyHanover Repair Good State of Hanover CountyHanover Repair Good State of New County Kent Chesterfield CountyChesterfield Repair Good State of Chesterfield CountyChesterfield Repair Good State of Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond District-wide Richmond Jurisdiction MAIN STREET STATION RTE 360E - RESURFACING BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) RIDEFINDERS - REGIONWIDE VANPOOL FLEET EXPANSION approved by the CTB on June 14, 2016, and is constrained to the VDOT and DRPT revenue projections for Timeband 1 (see page 61). page (see 1 Timeband for projections revenue DRPT and VDOT the to constrained is and 2016, 14, June on CTB the by approved CITYWIDE - TRAFFIC CALMING TRAFFIC CONTROLS - CITYWIDE CITYWIDE - OVERLAY PAVEMENT PAVEMENT OVERLAY - CITYWIDE #HB2.FY17 RTE 250 - STREETSCAPE TRANSIT INFORMATION SOFTWARE PROJECT PRESCOPING - PRESCOPING RICHMOND PROJECT I-64 EB REHAB EXISTINGPAVEMENT GRTC TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DRPT TRANSIT IN RICHMOND REGION RTE 76 SB - RESTORE EXIST PAVEMENT INSTALL TRAFFIC CALMING- CITYWIDE CITYWIDE - INSTALL TRAFFIC CONTROL INSTALL SIGNALS - VARIOUS LOCATIONS - VARIOUS SIGNALS INSTALL CITY OF RICHMOND - UPGRADE SIGNALS OF - RICHMOND CITY UPGRADE RTE 657 - SHOULDER WEDGE & OVERLAY UPGRADE TRAFFIC SIGNALS - TRAFFIC DISTRICTWIDE UPGRADE PAVEMENT OVERLAY - VARIOUS LOCATIONS - VARIOUS OVERLAY PAVEMENT #HB2.FY17 RTE 64 EB - PAVEMENT MARKING MAIN STREET STATION SITE IMPROVEMENTS RENOVATION OFTRANSPORTATION FACILITY HSIP DISTRICTWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND ITS SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC HSIP DISTRICTWIDE CITY SIGNAL SYSTEMS SOUTH OF JAMES RIVER OF JAMES SOUTH SYSTEMS SIGNAL CITY INSTALL PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS - DISTRICTWIDE RICHMOND GRTC - PURCHASE TRANSIT 15 BUSES EXPANSION OF CURRENT MAINTENANCE FACILITY MAINTENANCE OF CURRENT EXPANSION INSTALL TRAFFIC CONTROL - VARIOUS LOCATIONS - VARIOUS CONTROL TRAFFIC INSTALL CITY OF RICHMOND - PAINTING & REHABILITATION & - PAINTING RICHMOND OF CITY GRTC REPLACEMENT OF ROLLING CNGBUSES STOCK REPLACEMENT GRTC ALTERNATIVE FUEL TROLLEY VEHICLE REPLACEMENT MARKETINGCAMPAIGN TO ATTRACT CHOICE RIDERS INSTALL FLASHINGYELLOW ARROWS - DISTRICTWIDE GASKINS ROAD PARKAND RIDE FACILITY - RESURFACE #HB2.FY17 RTE 95 - ITS LOWBRIDGE WARNINGSYSTEM PEAR ST. - UPGRADE FLASHING LIGHTS AND ADD GATES FLASHING ADD LIGHTS ST. - AND UPGRADE PEAR PARKAND RIDE LOTS AT PRIORITY LOCATIONS - PE ONLY CITY OF RICHMOND - MAIN STREET STATION OPERATIONS CITY OF RICHMOND: EMPLOYEE TRIPREDUCTION PROGRAM CITY OF RICHMOND - MAIN STREET STATION CAPITAL FUNDS plan2040 Constrained Projects List: Timeband 1 (FY2017-2022Richmond in Transit DRPT Region) plan2040 List: and Projects Constrained SYIP 2014 PLANT MIXSCHEDULE CHESTERFIELD RESIDENCY (PRIMARY) REGIONWIDE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAM - RIDEFINDERS 2014 PLANT MIXSCHEDULE ASHLAND NORTH RESIDENCY (PRIMARY) HERMITAGE RD - UPGRADE CANTILEVER FLASHING GATES LIGHTS CANTILEVER AND - UPGRADE RD HERMITAGE HOSPITAL ST.- NEW FLASHING LIGHTS & GATES ADD CWT PREDICTORS CWT HOSPITAL ADD FLASHING ST.- NEW LIGHTS & GATES BUS TRANSFER STATION ON BROAD STREET BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH ST DISTRICTWIDE BUCKLE-UP SIGNING SAFETY IMPROVEMENT - RICHMOND IMPROVEMENT BUCKLE-UP SIGNINGSAFETY DISTRICTWIDE Description Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally T39 T41 T40 T198 T203 T240 T201 T206 T4314 81388 99581 50650 T1811 72706 57008 64219 66857 *Note: The Timeband 1 Allocation Guidelines (see page 67) were not used to define project type parameters for the Timeband 1 Constrained Projects List. The Timeband 1 Constrained Projects List is consistent with projects in the FY2017-2022 SYIP as FY2017-2022 the in projects with consistent is List Projects Constrained 1 Timeband The List. Projects Constrained 1 Timeband the for parameters type project define to used were not 67) page (see Guidelines Allocation 1 Timeband The *Note: 106304 107034 107036 107038 107102 T17407 T17751 T17753 T18016 T18033 T18054 100498 100564 104279 104280 105652 105668 107105 107106 107987 109319 105701 104482 106233 104476 106206 104511 107461 104499 104507 105666 107107 107837 UPC fig. 5.14. plan2040 constrained projects list - timeband 1 78
2,000,000 2,400,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 1,500,000 5,520,000 1,781,314 3,608,181
21,149,263 15,000,000 25,000,000 46,505,199 10,000,000 10,800,000 12,000,000 13,700,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 21,000,000 28,900,000 40,600,000 43,000,000 13,500,000 31,200,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost Estimate Cost Project Type Bicycle/Pedestrian Bicycle/Pedestrian Bicycle/Pedestrian Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Intermodal Jurisdiction Henrico Henrico TPO Chesterfield Henrico Richmond TPO Ashland Ashland Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Goochland Hanover Hanover Hanover TPO TPO Chesterfield plan2040 Constrained (FY2023-2028) Timeband Projects 2 plan2040 List: Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally Project Name Bicycle andBicycle Pedestrian Improvements RoadHomeview Improvements Parham Road Improvements and Bicycle Regionwide Pedestrian Improvements Bridge Replacement I-64Cox Rdat Bridge Replacement Major Rehabilitation of Robert Bridge E. Lee BridgeRegionwide Improvements 1 Widening ArborRte Oak to Ashcake England Enhancements St Widening Boundary) Pkwy-Rich/TC Tech (Meadowville Rd Church Enon N Bailey Bridge (Bailey Bridge Connector - Spring Run Road) Woolridge Road (Genito Road to Simonsbath) Widening I-95/Route 10 Interchange Improvements Route 288/Route 360: 30/Brad Continuous McNeer Green-T* RdWinterpock 360 - Springford (Rt. Pkwy) Widening Off-Ramp Improvements*Route 288/Routeto 360W 360: 288S Route 288/Route Bridge 360: Bailey Connector (2-lane segment)* RoadBeach 10-Nash) (Rt Widening or Nash Rd Extension 10) (Beach-Rt Meadowville Technology Parkway I-295 at Woolridge Rd Road) (Reservoir to Otterdale Widening Route 288/Route to Bailey 360: 288 NB Off-Ramp Bridge Connector* Route 288/Route Bridge 360: Bailey Connector and (4-lane segment) Brad Connector* McNeer RoadI-95/Willis Interchange Rd 623) Realignment (Rte Hockett E. Henry Patrick Rd Widening Widening Rd Green Pole Rd Station WideningAtlee Improvements Highway Regionwide IntermodalRegionwide Improvements fig. 5.15. plan2040 constrained projects list - timeband 1 79 610,000 700,000 900,000 220,000 250,000 250,000
3,900,000 1,600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,186,447 1,000,000 3,208,800 9,129,784 2,000,000 2,000,000 9,500,000 5,563,221 8,130,656
11,000,000 46,187,093 27,269,431 37,627,504 24,000,000 626,396,893
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost Estimate Cost Project Type Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Other Other Other Other Other Other Public Transportation Public Transportation Rail Rail Rail Rail of GoodState Repair of GoodState Repair of GoodState Repair Total Amount Jurisdiction Chesterfield Hanover Henrico Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond TPO Chesterfield Goochland Goochland Goochland GRTC TPO GRTC TPO Ashland Ashland Henrico TPO GRTC Henrico TPO plan2040 Constrained (FY2023-2028) Timeband Projects 2 plan2040 List: Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally Project Name Route 288/Route Off-Ramp to Commonwealth Pkwy* Ctr 360: 288 SB 54/GoddinsRt Turn Rd Hill Left Lane Countywide ATMS Phase III Roundabout St Roanoke and Turnpike Midlothian Roundabout Dr Boatwright and Rd Chopt Three Broad Rock Rd and Holly Springs Ave and Roundabout St Stockton Traffic Signal Modernizations Broad Rock Rd, Blvd, Belt Deloak Ave and McGuire Hospital Roundabout Improvements Intersection Regionwide Park and Ride Facilities Interchange Creek Report Justification 288/West Rt Ashland Rd. Interchange I-64 Modificationat Report Rd/I-64Oilville Interchange Modification Report Park and Ride Project Improvements Other Regionwide CompressedReplacement Natural Transportation Gas Specialized Vehicles PublicRegionwide Transportation Improvements Vaughan Rd Grade Separated Crossing ImprovementsAmtrak Station Mill Staples Amtrak ImprovementsStation RailRegionwide Improvements CompressedReplacement Natural Gas - Buses Rolling Stock Williamsburg Rd Improvements and Streetscape of Good State Regionwide Repair Improvements fig. 5.16. plan2040 constrained projects list - timeband 1 80 900,000
8,200,000 2,500,000 2,489,184 6,043,596 1,120,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 9,548,405
29,009,262 89,963,248 33,396,000 21,780,000 36,300,000 53,800,000 25,000,000 16,000,000 10,000,000 11,600,000 18,210,000 18,400,000 18,000,000 12,000,000 14,650,324 36,715,061 35,285,014 23,541,247 39,352,808 22,809,897
600,614,046
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost Estimate Cost Project TypeProject Bike/Ped Bridge Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Intermodal Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Other Other Transportation Public Transportation Public Rail of Good Repair State of Good Repair State Amount Total Jurisdiction TPO TPO Ashland Ashland Ashland Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Goochland Goochland Henrico Henrico Henrico Henrico TPO TPO Richmond Richmond Richmond TPO Richmond TPO GRTC TPO TPO GRTC TPO plan2040 Constrainedplan2040 Projects List: Timeband (FY2029-2034) 3 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally Project Name Project Regionwide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Regionwide Bridge Improvements 54 to Archie 1 Reconstruction- Rte to NCL Archie 1 Reconstruction- Rte Rte 1 Widening Ashcake to SCL to Winterpock)* Pointe (Mockingbird/Harbour Intersections 360: 360 Superstreet 288/Route Route Pkwy 360 (WoodlaketoRoute Village Otterdale) Pointe) Road Colony - Center Pkwy Woolridge (N. Charter Road Road) (Rt Widening 360 - Woolridge Otterdale Pkwy Rd to (EastRt 288) Widening West Centre Watkins Ashland Rd (Rte 623) Widening 649) Rd (Rte Reconstruction Blair Extension Rd Woodman Rd Widening Market New Pouncey Tract Rd Widening at I-64 Modification Interchange Rd Gaskins Improvements Highway Regionwide Improvements Intermodal Regionwide Improvement Intersection Rd Commerce and St Hull Improvement Intersection Ave Cowardin and St Hull Hermitage Rd, Boulevard, Westwood Ave and Brookland Pkwy Roundabout Improvements Intersection Regionwide ITS Integrations Citywide Improvements Other Regionwide Replacement Compressed Natural Gas Specialized Transportation Vehicles Regionwide Public Transportation Improvements Regionwide Rail Improvements Stock - Buses Rolling Gas Natural Compressed Replacement Regionwide State of Good Repair Improvements fig. 5.17. plan2040 constrained projects list - timeband 2 81 82 Fiscally Constrained Plan fig. 5.18. plan2040 Constrained Projects List: Timeband 4 (FY2035-2040)
plan2040 constrained projects list -timeband 4 Project Name Jurisdiction Project Type Cost Estimate Regionwide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements TPO Bike/Ped $ 27,932,095 Regionwide Bridge Improvements TPO Bridge $ 90,499,987 Route 288/Route 360: 360/Commonwealth Ctr Pkwy/Old Hundred Diverging Diamond Interchange* Chesterfield Highway $ 147,300,000 Powhite Pkwy (City/County Limits to Rt. 60) Widening Chesterfield Highway $ 43,000,000 Centralia Rd (Memory-Chester) Reconstruction and Turn Lanes Chesterfield Highway $ 25,000,000 Powhite Pkwy Ext (Watermill Pkwy to N Woolridge Rd. Ext) New Alignment Chesterfield Highway $ 22,325,000 Route 60 (Westchester Commons to Huguenot Springs Road) Chesterfield Highway $ 12,000,000 N Gayton Rd Improvements Henrico Highway $ 10,335,000 Dispatch Road (VA 613) Safety and Shoulder Improvements New Kent Highway $ 6,240,000 I-95 and Maury St Interchange Improvements Richmond Highway $ 9,000,000 I-95 and I-64 East Junction Interchange Improvements - PE Only Richmond Highway $ 500,000 I-95 and I-64 Overlap - Interchange Improvement Typical Section - PE Only Richmond Highway $ 500,000 I-95 and I-64 West Junction Interchange Improvements - PE Only Richmond Highway $ 500,000 New Interchange at I-95 and Port of Richmond - PE Only Richmond Highway $ 250,000 New Ramps Connecting New Interchange at I-95 and Bellemeade Rd/Commerce Rd - PE Only Richmond Highway $ 250,000 Maury St - Improvement Between I-95 Ramps and E. 16th St - PE Only Richmond Highway $ 100,000 Regionwide Highway Improvements TPO Highway $ 2,020,946 Regionwide Intermodal Improvements TPO Intermodal $ 8,379,628 Regionwide Intersection Improvements TPO Intersection $ 11,172,838 Regionwide Other Improvements TPO Other $ 29,608,020 Replacement Compressed Natural Gas Specialized Transportation Vehicles GRTC Public Transportation $ 11,694,552 Regionwide Public Transportation Improvements TPO Public Transportation $ 41,270,989 Regionwide Rail Improvements TPO Rail $ 27,932,095 Replacement Compressed Natural Gas Rolling Stock - Buses GRTC State of Good Repair $ 48,197,944 Regionwide State of Good Repair improvements TPO State of Good Repair $ 7,666,245 Total Amount $ 583,675,338 fig. 5.19. plan2040 Local-Private Projects Estimate Funding Completion
plan2040 local-private projects Jurisdiction Route Road Name Description Termini (x1000) Source Date Henrico County 5 Rte 5 Widening (2L to 4L) Osborne Tpke to Richmond City Limits $10,500 Private 2025 Bacova Drive Realignment Pouncey Tract Rd to Kain Rd $5,500 Private/Local 2022 Cedar Fork Rd Bridge New facility at Meadowview $5,200 Local 2030 Charles City Road Widening (2L to 4L) Lisle Rd to Monahan Road $2,100 Local 2022 Charles City Road Widening (3L to 4L) Laburnum Ave to Miller Rd $600 Private 2022 Concept Rd 26(Riverfront Pkwy) New 4 lane Facility Old Osborne Tpke(Rte 5) to Route 895 $18,000 Private 2025 Concept Road 80 New 2 lane Facility Portugee Rd to Memorial Dr $8,530 Private 2030 Courtney Road Widening (Improved 2 lane road) Staples Mill Rd to Mountain Rd $2,600 Private/Local 2022 Creighton Road Widening/Realignment (2L to 4L) Laburnum Ave to Sandy Lane $4,200 Local 2019 Creighton Road Widening/Realignment (2L to 4L) Sandy Lane to Richmond CL $2,900 Private 2030 Dabbs House Rd New 2 lane Facility E. Richmond Rd to Creighton Rd $2,100 Private 2030 Kain Rd Widening (2L to 4L) Pouncey Tract Rd to Ax Handle Ln $11,000 Private 2025 Library Road extension New 2 lane Facility Messer Rd to Midview Rd $2,900 Private 2025 Memorial Drive extension New 4 lane Facility Technology Blvd to Williamsburg Rd $4,800 Private/Local 2030 Midview Road extension (Concept Road 25) New 2 lane Facility Osborne Tpke to Concept Rd 26 (Riverfront $4,200 Private 2025 Oakland Rd extension New 2 lane Facility Osborne Tpke (Rte 5) to Concept Rd 26 $2,500 Private 2025 St. Charles Road Ext. New 2 lane Facility St. Charles Rd to Magellan Pkwy $2,400 Private 2022 Technology Blvd Ext. New 2 lane Facility Williamsburg Rd to Dead End $2,600 Private 2030 Three Chopt Road Ext. New 4 lane Facility Lauderdale Dr to N. Gayton Rd $2,200 Private 2020 White Oak Road Widening (Improved 2 lane road) Elko Rd to Rt 60 $9,900 Private/Local 2035 Wilton Pkwy (Concept Rd 34) New facility (4L) Rt 5 to Osborne Tpk $7,200 Private 2030 295 I-295 slip ramp Interchange modification I-95/I-295 $5,200 Private 2022 295 I-295 Portugee Road Interchange New Interchange at Portugee Rd $50,000 Private/Local 2035 295 I-295 Varina Road Interchange New Interchange Varina Rd $45,000 Private/Local 2035 Darbytown Road Widening (2L to 4L) Richmond CL to Laburnum Ave $17,500 Private/Local 2030 Charles City Road Widening (2L to 4L) Williamsburg Rd to Laburnum Ave $14,500 Private/Local 2030 Lauderdale Drive Widening (2L to 4L) Westbriar Dr to Edenbury Dr $10,500 Local 2030 Memorial Dr/Poplar Springs Rd Widening (2L to 4L) Charles City Rd to Technology Dr $12,000 Private/Local 2030 Willson Rd Extension (Concept Road 180) New 2 lane Facility Midview Rd to Messer Rd $2,100 Private 2025 Goochland County Wilkes Ridge Pkwy to Wilkes Ridge Pkwy TBD Wilkes Ridge Ct New (4L Undivided) (Loop) $2,000 Private 2017 1034 Wilkes Ridge Pkwy Ext. New (4L Divided) Wilkes Ridge Pkwy to Termini $1,500 Private 2019 Broad Street Rd. (at Rte. 288 Ramp) to TBD TBD New (4L Divided) Termini $2,000 Private 2018 83 Fiscally Constrained Plan 84 Fiscally Constrained Plan fig. 5.20. plan2040 Unconstrained Projects
plan2040 constrained projects list -unfundedregionalneeds Project Name Jurisdiction Project Type Cost Estimate Route 288/Route 360: 288S CD Roads, 360E to 288N Ramp, 288 Widening* Chesterfield Highway $ 115,900,000 N Woolridge Road (Simonsbath to Rt 288) New Alignment Chesterfield Highway $ 123,000,000 HMK Access Roads Chesterfield Highway $ 40,000,000 Interstate 95 Auxiliary Lanes Between Route 288 and Route 10 Chesterfield Highway Interstate 95 Capacity and Operational Improvements at I-295 Hanover Highway Magellan Parkway Extension Henrico Highway $ 59,300,000 Richmond-Henrico Tpke/Meadowbridge Rd Improvements Henrico Highway $ 19,000,000 N Gayton Interchange at I-64 Henrico Highway $ 80,000,000 I-64 Capacity Increase from Bottoms Bridge to Route 106 New Kent Highway Henpeck Road (VA 665) Safety and Shoulder Improvements New Kent Highway $ 4,100,000 Interstate 95 Capacity and Operational Improvements at Shockoe Valley Bridge to Route 10 Richmond Highway I-95/I-64 Overlap Study Area Emergency Pull-Offs Richmond Highway VA Route 288 ITS Investments, Phase 1 Powhatan/Goochland Other VA Route 288 ITS Investments, Phase 2 Chesterfield Other Total Amount $ 441,300,000 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally fig. 5.21. SYIP-TIP PROJECTS 85 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
map 5.3. SYIP-TIP PROJECTS 86 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally map 5.4. SYIP-TIP PROJECTS 87 SYIP and TIP Projects - A3 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
map 5.5. SYIP-TIP PROJECTS 88 SYIP and TIP Projects - B1 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
map 5.6. SYIP-TIP PROJECTS 89 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
map 5.7. SYIP-TIP PROJECTS 90 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally map 5.8. SYIP-TIP PROJECTS 91 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
map 5.9. PLAN2040 CANDIDATE PROJECTS 92 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally map 5.10. PLAN2040 CANDIDATE PROJECTS - A1 93 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
map 5.11. PLAN2040 CANDIDATE PROJECTS - A2 94 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally map 5.12. PLAN2040 CANDIDATE PROJECTS - A3 95 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
map 5.13. PLAN2040 CANDIDATE PROJECTS - B1 96 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally map 5.14. PLAN2040 CANDIDATE PROJECTS - B2 97 Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
map 5.15. PLAN2040 CANDIDATE PROJECTS - B3 98 this page intentionally left blank Fiscally Constrained Plan Constrained Fiscally
99 100 Environmental Justice Analysis
One of the key elements of plan2040 is a look at the growth of our disadvantaged populations and how the transportation investments and development projected in the Fiscally Constrained Plan impacts these populations, whether beneficial or adverse. Environmental Justice is defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of laws, regulations, and policies.”
Regulatory Framework for Environmental Justice In 1994, President Clinton extended the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, issuing Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act aims to prevent discrimination in programs, policies, and activities receiving federal funding. Environmental Justice reinforced the legal requirements and rights established by Title VI, directing each Federal agency to make achieving environmental justice principles part of its mission.
The Environmental Justice (EJ) Order extends Title VI regulations to evaluate the impacts of federal programs and activities on affected groups. In the past, minority and low-income populations have been identified as the largest disenfranchised group, both in terms of equal access to transportation supply and citizen input.
Each MPO receiving federal funds needs to examine that all future transportation plans address the following environmental justice principles: • To ensure the level and quality of transportation service is provided without regard to race, color or national origin
• To avoid or minimize high and adverse human health and environmental effects on low income and minority population
101 • To prevent the denial of benefit, the Environmental Protection to Zero-Car households. The reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits Agency. Environmental Justice analysis by low income and minority resulted in a report of the populations Demographic data regarding allocation of funds to predomi- these special populations were nantly disadvantaged population • To ensure the full and fair collected to identify areas of concentration areas and a plan participation by low income concentration in the Richmond and minority population and for communication with disad- ensure meaningful access to Region. The selected data were vantaged populations. programs and activities by evaluated by Census tract, and Demographics persons with limited English averages of regional totals for proficiency all tracts for the various target Disadvantaged population populations were calculated to (Low income and Minority) Identification of Selected establish a point of comparison concentration areas in addition Populations and or threshold. Tracts are desig- to Environmental Justice Areas based on the EPA’s demographic Concentration Areas nated concentration areas if the percentage of the sensitive index have been identified for Disadvantaged population population in that tract exceeds the EJ analysis. Based on the concentration areas (defined the regional threshold for the calculations in these tables the as having a concentration of target population. Using that Richmond Region has 40 percent Low-Income and/or Minority point of comparison to establish Minority Population, 12 percent populations) have been identified which areas fall above or below Low Income Population and 7 in the Regional Demographics the average for the study area percent Zero Car households. section of the Technical alerts planners to special areas This information is summarized Document of plan2040. To of consideration when analyzing in the table below. protect people from being the effects of changes to the excluded in the course of regional transportation system. transportation planning, special Environmental Justice Areas populations are identified to have been designated using reduce disproportional impacts the EPA’s demographic index, of transportation projects. and concentration areas are Identification is the first step identified based on the average in the Environmental Justice of both the percentage of process for preparing transpor- minority and low-income tation plans. Special populations populations. Environmental include Minorities, Low-Income, Justice Areas were evaluated in and Zero Car households. addition to Low-Income and Further, Environmental Justice Minority concentration areas. Areas were identified using the Environmental Justice Areas demographic index provided by are evaluated in relationship Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental fig. 6.1. environmental justice special populations per household in the richmond region
102 Location of Minority and Low Income Concentration Areas
Map 6.1 shows the concentration of all disadvantaged population in the Richmond region. On the map, solid red areas illustrate Low Income population concentration areas and grey dotted areas are Minority Population concentration areas. Most census tracts that have predominantly minority population are located in the City and its adjacent census tracts, especially to the north and east. The map indicates that the highest concentrations of minority populations occur in the City of Richmond and Henrico County. Tracts in northern Chesterfield County adjoining Richmond are also Minority Concentration Areas. All tracts in Charles City County are identified Minority Population concentration areas. Similarly, the majority of predominantly low-income areas are located within the City of Richmond. With the exception of the area west of downtown, most census tracts within the City show a concentration of low-income Population. Portions of eastern and western Henrico County and areas immediately around I-95 in Chesterfield County also show a high concentration of low-income population. Most of the predominantly minority areas are also low-income areas.
map 6.16. minority and low-income populations in the richmond region Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental
103 Environmental Justice Areas and Zero Car Households
The majority of areas with a high percentage of transit depend households are located in low-income and minority neighborhoods. In order to see the relationship between Environmental Justice Areas and Zero Car Household concentration areas in the Richmond Region, both the categories were overlaid and mapped. The map here shows this spatial analysis. Environmental Justice Areas (over the threshold for the Low Income and Minority populations combined as an average using the EPA’s standard demographic index) are displayed in purple, and yellow hatched areas are Zero Car Household areas. Seventy-seven percent of Zero Car Household concentration areas are also considered concentrated low-income and minority areas, designated Environmental Justice Areas. Map 6.2 indicates that concentrated areas of low auto ownership are almost within the predominantly disadvantaged group areas. Map 6.3 provides a comparison of low-wage jobs and transit accessible tracts relative to Environmental Justice Areas in the region, showing an overlap with Zero Car Households.
map 6.17. minority and low-income populations in the richmond region Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental
104 Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental map 6.18. low-wage jobs, transit accessible tracts, and environmental justice areas in the richmond region
105 Allocation of Funds Examination of transportation populations. The Environmental to Predominantly investment per capita offers Justice Executive Order does not Disadvantaged another view of the distribu- mandate proportionate outcomes Population tion of transportation benefits with respect to transportation Concentration Areas and impacts. The amount of funding, but instead focuses on funding forecast to be available enhanced public involvement and To conduct the spatial analysis in the Richmond area from the distribution of benefits and portion of the environmental state and federal sources during impacts. They also indicate what justice funding analysis, all region- the time period FY17 to FY40 percentage of MTP funding is ally significant transportation is approximately $1.8 billion. allocated to areas with disadvan- projects were mapped. See the Transportation investment per taged population concentrations. following lists on pages 106-108 capita was calculated by dividing for the location of all transpor- the total inflation-adjusted cost tation projects in Environmental of projects within a particular Justice communities listed in area by the number of people plan2040. Approximately 42 living in that area. Investment percent of transportation projects per capita was calculated for fell entirely or partially within both EJ And Non-EJ areas in the defined EJ areas. The lists show RRTPO region, and is displayed which projects are located in in the table below. each disadvantaged group area, or Fig. 6.2 and Fig. 6.3 below would serve each area, and what indicates that minority and spending would be accounted for low-income groups (identi- in each area. Funding amounts fied as EJ areas) are receiving included on this list have not less transportation investment been adjusted for inflation. funds per capita than non-mi- nority and non-low-income
fig. 6.2. comparison of environmental justice areas for transportation investments per capita Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental
fig. 6.3. percentage of environmental justice populations receiving mtp funding allocations 106 Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental
107 Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental
108 Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental
109 Communication with the Disadvantaged Population
One of the major elements of environmental justice is commu- nication with the disadvantaged population. The whole process of the plan2040 update was done keeping in mind the principles and objectives of environmental justice. Special efforts have been made to reach out to minority, low-income, and LEP popu- lation groups identified within the Richmond Region. These outreach efforts were focused on local community newspapers.
Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental
110 this page intentionally left blank Environmental Justice Analysis Justice Environmental
111 plan 2040 Appendices
Table of Contents
116 Appendix A: plan2040 Frequently Used Terms and Abbreviations
123 Appendix B : plan2040 Project Evaluation Tool - Methodology
155 Appendix C: plan2040 Survey Results
162 Appendix D: Amendments Documentation
112 Appendix A: plan2040
Frequently Used Terms and Abbreviations
113
FREQUENTLYFREQUENTLY USED TPO USED TERMS TERMS AND AD ABBREVIATIONS ABBEVIATIONS
Attainment A term that means an area is in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and/or the Clean Air Act (CAA). The NAAQS establish the maximum pollutant concentrations that are allowed in the outside ambient air. The Richmond area (i.e., Cities of Richmond, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Petersburg, and the counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico and Prince George) is designated as an attainment area (EPA designation made on April 30, 2012; area previously designated as a maintenance area for air quality standards).
Highway Trust Fund (HTF) Provides dedicated funding for federal highway and mass transit programs. Revenues placed in the HTF come from the federal gasoline tax plus other user fees. The HTF consists of separate highway and mass transit accounts.
RRTPO (TPO) Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization. The following local governments and agencies comprise the voting members of the RRTPO: Ashland, Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, New Kent, Powhatan, Richmond, CRAC, GRTC, RMTA, RRPDC, and VDOT. The RRTPO serves as the forum for cooperative transportation decision making in the Richmond area.
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards; defined by EPA.
Obligations Commitments made by USDOT agencies to pay out money for federal-aid transportation projects. The TIP serves as the MPO’s program of transportation projects for which federal funds have been obligated.
Regionally Significant Term used for air quality conformity analysis to categorize highway and rail facilities covered by this analysis. Regionally significant projects are projects on facilities that serve regional transportation needs and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area’s transportation network. This includes, as a minimum, all principal arterial highways and all fixed guide-way transit facilities that offer a significant alternative to regional highway travel.
SIP State Implementation Plan; identifies control measures and process for achieving and maintaining NAAQS; eligible for CMAQ funding.
Appendix A: plan2040
114
Study Area The geographic area projecte to ecome r ani e within the ne t ears efines the area for MPO p ans programs an st ies referre to as “Metropolitan Planning Area” in federal regulations).
"3-C" Process ("Continuing, Cooperative and Comprehensive”) ang age from fe era egis ation esta ishing MPOs an se in reference to the regiona transportation p anning an programming process.
TCM Transportation ontro Meas res for air a it contro e igi e for M f n ing.
TDM Transportation eman Management vario s transportation contro strategies an meas res se in managing highwa eman .
TIP Transportation Improvement Program a stage m ti ear intermo a program of transportation projects that is consistent with the regiona ong range transportation p an.
MTP The TPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan serves as the initia step an framework in eve oping a regiona ase network of transportation faci ities an services that meets trave nee s in the most efficient an effective manner possi e.
TAZ (Transportation or Traffic Analysis Zone) enera efine as areas of homogeneo s activit serve one or two major highwa s. T s serve as the ase nit for socioeconomic ata characteristics se in transportation comp ter mo e s an for vario s p ans an st ies.
Urbanized Area Term se the . . ens s rea to esignate r an areas. These areas genera contain pop ation ensities of at east persons per s are mi e in a contin o s i t p area of at east persons. actors s ch as commercia an in stria eve opment an other t pes an forms of r an activit centers are a so consi ere .
UWP nifie ork Program MPO s program of work activities noting p anning priorities assigne staffs work pro cts gets an f n ing so rces.
VOC o ati e Organic ompo n s emissions from cars power p ants etc when O s react with o i es of nitrogen O in the presence of heat an s n ight to pro ce gro n eve o one or smog.
TPO STANDING COMMITTEES Appendix A: plan2040
CTAC iti ens Transportation visor ommittee 115
EDAC lderl and isa ilit Advisor Committee
TAC Te hni al Advisor Committee
FEDERAL STATE AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
CRAC Capital egion Airport Commission
EPA nvironmental Prote tion Agen
FAA ederal Aviation Administration
FHWA ederal igh a Administration
FRA ederal ailroad Administration
FTA ederal Transit Administration
GRTC TC Transit stem (formerl reater i hmond Transit Compan )
MRAQC Metropolitan i hmond Air ualit Committee
RideFinders A division of TC that provides arpool vanpool mat hing and other ommuter and transportation servi es
MARAD Maritime Administration
RMA i hmond Metropolitan Authorit
RRPDC i hmond egional Planning istri t Commission
USDOT nited tates epartment of Transportation
VDA irginia epartment of Aviation
VDEQ irginia epartment of nvironmental ualit
VDOT irginia epartment of Transportation
VDRPT irginia epartment of ail and Pu li Transportation
VCTIR irginia Center for Transportation nnovation and esear h Appendix A: plan2040
116
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
ADA Ameri ans ith isa ilities A t
CAAA Clean Air A t Amendments
SAFETEA-LU afe, A ounta le, le i le, ffi ient Transportation A t A ega for sers federal transportation reauthori ation signed into la on August , eauthori ed federal surfa e transportation programs for high a s, high a safet and transit for the four ear period (several short term e tensions have een ena ted Congress)
FUNDING PROGRAMS
SPR tate Planning and esear h; federal funds allo ated to OT in support of MPO, rural and other planning program a tivities
Local Match unds re uired re ipients (i e P C or other designated agen or lo al government) of P and e tion funds for mat hing federal and state grant funds e tion and P funds re uire a mat h, ith OT PT providing and the remaining provided the federal sour e
RRPDC unds from the P C (state appropriations and lo al dues) provided as the lo al mat h
PL Planning funds availa le from A for MPO program a tivities
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation Air ualit federal funding program that dire ts funding to pro e ts hi h ontri ute to meeting AA CMA funds generall ma not e used for pro e ts that result in the onstru tion of ne high a apa it for single o upant vehi les CMA funds ma e availa le for eligi le planning a tivities that lead to and result in pro e t implementation
Section 5303 Planning funds availa le from the TA for MPO program a tivities
Multimodal Planning Multimodal Planning rant OT dis retionar grant program (state funds mat hed lo al funds) providing assistan e and support for innovative multimodal transportation planning initiatives
TEIF Transportation ffi ien mprovement und purpose of program is to Appendix A: plan2040 redu e traffi ongestion supporting transportation demand management programs designed to redu e use of single o upant vehi les 117
and in rease use of high o upan vehi le modes administered the Common ealth Transportation oard
OTHER TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACG Address Coding uide
ADT Average ail Traffi used in on un tion ith urrent and pro e ted traffi volumes
CAO Chief Administrative Offi er
CARE Communit Assisted ide nterprise program operated TC providing A A related demand response paratransit servi e for the elderl and disa led in the Cit of i hmond and enri o Count
CMP Congestion Management Pro ess
COA Comprehensive Operational Anal sis (for transit studies)
CTB Common ealth Transportation oard
EJ nvironmental usti e
FFY ederal is al ear (O to er to eptem er )
FY is al ear ( ul to une )
GIS eographi nformation stem
I/M nspe tion and Maintenan e
MSA Metropolitan tatisti al Area The i hmond Peters urg M A in ludes the ities of Colonial eights, ope ell, Peters urg, and i hmond the ounties of Charles Cit , Chesterfield, in iddie, oo hland, anover, enri o, e ent, Po hatan, and Prin e eorge and the To n of Ashland
NHS ational igh a stem
NOx itrogen O ides
SIP tate mplementation Plan (for attainment and maintenan e of air ualit
Appendix A: plan2040 standards)
SOV ingle O upant ehi les 118
STP urfa e Transportation Program
SYIP i ear mprovement Program annual do ument approved the CT Provides the state’s list of federal and state funded transportation projects and programs administered OT and PT for hi h funds have een allo ated or are s heduled to e allo ated
TDP Transit evelopment Program
TMA Transportation Management Area (i.e. MPO’s greater than 200,000 in population)
VMT ehi le Miles Traveled
Appendix A: plan2040
119
120 Appendix B : plan2040
Project Evaluation Tool - Methodology
121 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to describe the methodology built-in to the ‘2040 MTP Project Evaluation Tool.xls’ which RRTPO staff will employ in the evaluation of candidate project applications submitted by eligible localities and agencies for consideration and inclusion in the fiscally-constrained 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The scale and type of projects eligible to be specifically listed in the plan are described in the ‘2040 MTP Project Inclusion Criteria’ (included here in Appendix) and are generally thought of as projects of regional significance which will potentially be funded with federal funding sources. Once projects have been submitted, RRTPO staff will apply the ‘Project Evaluation Tool’ as described in the following methodology.
An overall objective of the 2040 MTP project evaluation exercise is to move the RRTPO planning process in the direction of a ‘Performance-Based Planning and Programming (PBPP)’ approach. PBPP is a core component of the Moving Ahead with Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) federal transportation authorization bill, which calls on metropolitan planning organizations, like the RRTPO, to establish a performance and outcome-based program for federal funding sources, and to invest resources in projects that collectively make progress toward seven national goals: Safety; Infrastructure Condition; Congestion Reduction; System Reliability; Freight Movement & Economic Vitality; and Project Delivery.
A first step in applying PBPP principles was taken by the MTP Advisory Committee (MTP AC) and TPO Board in development and endorsement of nine 2040 MTP Goals, which closely align with federal and state transportation goals. In order to tie planning and programming priorities to the goals, the MTP AC developed and approved a candidate project application process for the 2040 MTP with the nine goals as an organizing framework. The resulting application materials and evaluation criteria are foundational pieces of a goals-based evaluation method; assessing the degree to which any given candidate project will advance the region toward achieving one or multiple of transportation system goals. Any project not specifically listed in the plan, but which has a logical connection or potential impact on advancing one or multiple 2040 MTP goals will be considered in the future to be ‘consistent with the 2040 MTP’.
Specific to the ‘Project Evaluation Tool’, the purpose of the tool is to provide staff with a guide for the quantitative evaluation of project benefits to the extent possible given data constraints, and as necessary to score using qualitative information in a way that is logically considered, uniform and consistent. Candidate projects are to be scored and ranked relative only to projects of the same type and relative to projects expected to take place in a similar time horizon, or “timeband”. Candidate projects will be scored for each goal criteria where some logical connection exists; for example the criteria of ‘Freight Mobility’ as they are conceived in the application disqualify certain project types such as Transit or Bike/Ped to be eligible for points.
Finally, RRTPO staff has developed the ‘Project Evaluation Tool’ and Methodology Report to assist project applicants by providing transparency prior to evaluation about how each application question and the information provided by the applicant will be considered, and also to provide for an easily shareable and sortable format after evaluation to allow applicants to review how each question for each project was scored and how each data input impacted the composite score. Ultimately, the evaluation of projects employing the tool and methodology as described in this report is one component of the process undertaken by the MTP AC and TPO Board that will result in the fiscally-constrained project list for the 2040 MTP. Appendix B : plan2040
122 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 1 Project Readiness
The Project ea iness co onent is inten e to rovi e an a itional criteria or the TP visor o ittee to evaluate the relative erits o si ilar scorin rojects an e use to eter ine which ti e an a rojects alls into i the a licant oes not rovi e antici ate roject sche ule ates. Project ea iness will not irectl actor into an evaluate rojects co osite score.
itionall the in or ation re ueste or ‘Project ea iness’ s eci icall on the level o lannin ac uisition co lete an consistenc with or inclusion in re ional an localit lannin ocu ents will rovi e TP sta necessar ac roun on the e ree to which TP can i ate rojects have e vette throu h a local u lic in ut rocess. The rojects ulti atel inclu e in the iscall constraine TP ust un er o u lic review an un erstan in o each roject’s evelo ent throu h local lannin or otherwise will assist TP sta in co unicatin the relative ene its o rojects an the e ree to which a roject is an has een a riorit in the a licant localit .
Q1 – Do you believe this project will be consistent with the following documents?
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
. ount o rehensive Plan es o . . . e ional o rehensive Plan es o . . (Note: Examples include previous TPO Long-Range Plans or the Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy with which the project is consistent.) . unici al o rehensive Plan es o . . . unici al onin r inance es o . . E. unici al icial a es o . . (Note: Thoroughfare Map, Future Growth Areas Map, or other map approved by council or board of supervisors with which the project is consistent)
es to an o a ove ocu ent where in lans.
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
ta will in ut a licant res onse es no n.a. into ‘Project Evaluation Tool’ for each of the five re ueste ocu ents. ta will vali ate a ainst localit or re ional ocu ents as necessar an con er resolve iscre anc with roject a licant in an cases where review o ocu ents i er ro what a licant has re orte .
Q2 – Do you believe this project has made progress with environmental processes?
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
a e ro ress with environ ental rocess es o . .
es lease ex lain arrative ox rovi e
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
Staff will input applicant response (yes/no/n.a.) into ‘Project Evaluation Tool’. If applicant responds “N/A”, indicating that no environ ental ocu entation is re uire sta will vali ate that no Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 2 123 environ ental docu entation is re uired and award full readiness points for this uestion if confir ed. If the applicant responds “Yes”, Staff evaluator will review the narrative provided y the applicant and analy e the degree to which environ ental docu entation has een co pleted applying the following five category su jective scale
– E cellent Progress – ery ood Progress – ood Progress – So e Progress – ittle Progress
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
tained and/or coordinate utilities es/No/N.A.
If yes, please e plain (Narrative o provided)
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
Staff will input applicant response (yes/no/n.a.) into ‘Project Evaluation Tool’, and validate/confer with applicant if necessary.
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
Identify what ti e and the project will e i ple ented – – –
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
Staff will input applicant response for timeband into ‘Project Evaluation Tool’. If no timeband or schedule is provided y the applicant, staff will tier these projects into ti e ands y applying rough project readiness scores as deter ined y , and of the project readiness section.
Appendix B : plan2040
124 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 3 Congestion Mitigation
on estion iti ation is wei hted at of the project score. Each uestion ( ) is valued at . points.
ote This oal evaluation criteria applies to all candidate ‘Project Types’
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
Improve areas of locali ed con estion within the project area Yes/ o/ . .
If yes, please e plain and provide any of the followin information
evel of Service ( S) Traffic olumes Person hours of delay Person throu hput
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
Staff will review applicant response (yes/no/n.a.) and input supporting congestion data into ‘Project Evaluation Tool’. If applicant checkbo o or / and no con estion data is provided the resultin score for this uestion will be .
If applicant chec bo yes and no con estion data is provided, staff will wor with locality and/or T to develop data to populate at least one of the necessary data fields as feasible. If chec bo yes and data provided, staff will input data into the ‘Project Evaluation Tool’ usin the followin scales (with upper limits of scale indicatin increasin levels of e istin traffic severity)
– S – S – S – S – S E – S
– , T – , , T – , , T – , , T – , , T – , T
– . – . – . – . Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 4 125 –
– – . – . – . – . –
ote The for ula for ongestion itigation uestion in the ‘Project Evaluation Tool’ is progra ed to provide a scaled average for each data point provided therefore if an applicant can only provide S data for e a ple, the project score will not be penali ed relative to another application which provides ultiple data points ( S, Traffic olu es, Person Throughput, etc.). owever, failure to provide at least one data point will result in a score of ero TP staff will be available to work with project applicants on developing at least one data point as feasible.
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
I prove syste functionality through i prove ents es/ o/ . .
If yes, please identify and e plain
Signal pgrades ITS pplications ccess anage ent approaches (change of use, approach spacing, sight distance, channeli ation) ther
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
Staff will review applicant response (yes/no/n.a.), i prove ent checkbo es and supporting narrative provided by applicant. If checkbox “no” or “n.a.”, a score of zero will be applied. If checkbox “yes”, staff evaluator will input yes into evaluation tool and analy e checkbo es, narrative and project description to apply the following scale of potential for syste functionality i prove ent
– o I prove ent to syste functionality e pected as result of the project – ittle I prove ent to syste functionality e pected as result of the project as described – So e I prove ent to syste functionality e pected as result of the project as described – ood I prove ent to syste functionality e pected as result of the project as described – ery ood I prove ent to syste functionality e pected as result of the project as described – reat I prove ent to syste functionality e pected as result of the project as described
Appendix B : plan2040
126 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 5 Freight Mobility
rei ht obility is wei hted at of the project score. Each uestion is valued at points.
ote This oal evaluation criteria applies to all candidate ‘Project Types’ with the exception of ike Ped and Public Transportation projects.
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
I prove the e ional Inter odal rei ht etwork es o . .
If yes, please explain and provide the followin infor ation
I prove ents to re ional frei ht network I pact on truck ove ent Increase in travel ti e reliability ther
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff will input applicant response yes, no, n.a. into evaluation tool, and validate by checkin project location a ainst e ional Inter odal rei ht etwork ap see pa e of “Richmond/Tri ities Regional Intermodal Strategies Study”). If result of staff validation differs fro application, staff will follow up to discuss with applicant as necessary. For validated “yes” responses, staff will review the narrative explanation and checkboxes, and apply the followin subjective scale
– o I prove ent, in ter s of i pact on frei ht ove ent and travel ti e reliability, to e ional Inter odal rei ht etwork expected as result of this project
– ittle I prove ent, in ter s of i pact on frei ht ove ent and travel ti e reliability, to e ional Inter odal rei ht etwork is expected as result of this project
– o e I prove ent, in ter s of i pact on frei ht ove ent and travel ti e reliability, to e ional Inter odal rei ht etwork is expected as result of this project
– ood I prove ent, in ter s of i pact on frei ht ove ent and travel ti e reliability, to e ional Inter odal rei ht etwork is expected as result of this project
– ery ood I prove ent, in ter s of i pact on frei ht ove ent and travel ti e reliability, to e ional Inter odal rei ht etwork is expected as result of this project
– reat I prove ent, in ter s of i pact on frei ht ove ent and travel ti e reliability, to e ional Inter odal rei ht etwork is expected as result of this project
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 6 127
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
Improve access to freight intensive facilities es/ o/ . .
If yes, please explain and provide information on increased access to air, improvements to flow of rail, and if pro ect provides etter access to ey freight intensive facilities such as
ort of Richmond Richmond International irport Regional or municipal airports Freight distri ution facilities ommercial districts Industrial districts
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
Staff will review applicant response yes, no, n.a.) and validate y chec ing pro ect location relative to the freight intensive facilities reported as improving access to. If result of staff validation differs from application, staff will follow up to discuss with applicant as necessary. Staff will input validated “yes” responses into ‘Project Evaluation Tool’. Score for uestion is scaled to the num er of chec oxes, i.e. the num er of different freight intensive facility types that the pro ect provides improved access to.
Appendix B : plan2040
128 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 7 System Reliability
yste elia ility is ei ted at o t e project score. Eac uestion is valued at . points.
ote T is oal evaluation criteria applies to all candidate ‘Project Types’ with the exception of Bike/Ped projects.
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
ddress i travel ti es or i prove relia ility es o . .
yes please e plain and provide any o t e ollo in in or ation
Travel Ti e nde Plannin Ti e nde u er Ti e nde eal ti e traveler in or ation or ay indin tec nolo y t er
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
ta ill input applicant response yes no n.a. . ta ill t en revie supportin docu entation data provided and project description and apply t e ollo in su jective scale
– pplicant c ec o o or
– pplicant c ec o es ut no data or evidence provided
– pplicant c ec o es data provided and project description indicate little potential or project i prove ent to travel ti e inde plannin travel ti e and or u er ti e inde e istin condition indicates very ood relia ility at present project does not include real ti e traveler in o or ay indin tec nolo y or ot er tec nolo y as part o its scope.
– pplicant c ec o es data provided and project description indicate so e potential or project i prove ent to travel ti e inde plannin travel ti e and or u er ti e inde e istin condition indicates ood relia ility at present project includes or does not include so e ele ent o real ti e traveler in o or ay indin tec nolo y or ot er tec nolo y as part o its scope.
ec o es data provided and project description indicate ood potential or i prove ent to travel ti e inde plannin travel ti e and or u er ti e inde e istin condition indicates elo avera e relia ility at present project includes or does not include so e ele ent o real ti e traveler in o or ay indin tec nolo y or ot er tec nolo y as part o its scope.
ec o es data provided and project description indicate very ood potential or i prove ent to travel ti e inde plannin travel ti e and or u er ti e inde e istin condition indicates poor relia ility at present project includes so e ele ent o real ti e traveler in o or ay indin tec nolo y or ot er tec nolo y as part o its scope.
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 8 129 –
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
nc ea e p ic t an po tation e ice f e enc and capacit e / o/
f e p ea e exp ain th o h exa p e
an it te p o e ent ed ction of de a on a oadwa with ched ed peak e ice of t an it ehic e pe ho a tphone app ication and/o the
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff wi inp t app icant e pon e e no n a into e a ation too pon taff a idation a ain t ppo tin doc entation check oxe /data p o ided and p o ect de c iption f taff opinion diffe f o app icant on potentia fo i pact on p ic t an po tation e ice f e enc and capacit taff wi fo ow p with app icant to c a if o ca e app ied
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
nco po ate t a e de and ana e ent t ate ie e / o/
f e p ea e exp ain identif in what t ate ie
p o ed t an po t option ncenti e to e a te nati e ode and ed ce d i in Pa kin and and e ana e ent Po ic and n tit tiona efo P o a and P o a ppo t
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff wi inp t app icant e pon e e no n a into e a ation too f app icant check ox no o n a then e o point wi e a ai a e f app icant check ox e t p o ide no info ation on which t ate ie a e co ponent of the p o ect taff wi fo ow p to c a if with app icant f app icant check ox e and p o ide ppo tin info ation the fo owin ca e wi e app ied
o t ate oxe checked o exp ained in na ati e o p o ect de c iption ne t ate ox checked and/o exp ained in na ati e o p o ect de c iption wo t ate oxe checked and/o exp ained in na ati e o p o ect de c iption h ee t ate oxe checked and/o exp ained in na ati e o p o ect de c iption o t ate oxe checked and/o exp ained in na ati e o p o ect de c iption i e o o e t ate oxe checked and/o exp ained in na ati e o p o ect de c iption Appendix B : plan2040
130 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 9 Access to Employment
cce to p o ent i wei hted at of the p o ect co e ach e tion i a ed at point
ote hi oa e a ation c ite ia app ie to a candidate ‘P o ect pe ’.
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
p o e acce to a ea of e p o ent e / o/
f e p ea e exp ain and p o ide ap of a e a e e p o ent den it within a i e ffe of the p o ect a ea
(Note: See PDC 2012 Employment Density map on next page. GIS layer available upon request.)
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff wi inp t app icant e pon e e no n a into e a ation too pon a idation a ain t p o ect de c iption and ocation f e taff wi app fo owin ca e of e p o ent den it within i e ffe of p o ect a ea
e a e p o ent en it p o ent pe a e i e within / i e ffe of p o ect a ea
e a e p o ent en it p o ent pe a e i e within / i e ffe of p o ect a ea
e a e p o ent en it p o ent pe a e i e within / i e ffe of p o ect a ea
e a e p o ent en it p o ent pe a e i e within / i e ffe of p o ect a ea
e a e p o ent en it p o ent pe a e i e within / i e ffe of p o ect a ea
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 10 131
Appendix B : plan2040
132 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 11 –
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
nc ea e acce i i it t e acti it cente e . .
If yes, please explain and provide map of proposed project’s proximity to key activity centers as identi ied t an a e t e and i it t a ea it i e t ate it a i e e
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
ta i in t a icant e n e e n n.a. int e a ati n t n a idati n a ain t ect de c i ti n and cati n. e ta i i t c n i t at ect ide acce t e acti it cente e n . ec nd ta i e a ate e n i t e ect inc ea e acce i i it a ea i e t i e t de ined a t e a ea a e t e e i na a e a e e t . in a . ta i a t e in t dete ine e n
e t e e a e e t an in a ndin ect a ea and a ’ it inc ea ed acce i i it a e t ect.
e e t e e eate t an in at ea t ne ndin ect a ea and at ea t ne it inc ea ed acce i i it a e t ect.
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 12 133 Multimodal Connectivity
ltimodal onnectivity is ei ted at of t e project score ac estion is val ed at points
ote is oal eval ation criteria applies to all candidate ‘ roject ypes’.
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
Introd ce ne connections et een travel patterns es o
If yes, please explain
treet onnectivity inkin icycle pedestrian ro tes onnections et een transit ro tes and providers t er
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff ill inp t applicant response yes, no, n a into eval ation tool pon validation a ainst project description, location and narrative explanation provided If staff opinion on potential to introd ce ne connections differs from applicant, staff ill follo p it applicant to clarify o scale applied
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
liminate overcome arriers in key corridors es o
If yes, please explain and note official deto r distance ased on factors s c as ei t restrictions
los res eto rs and delays deto r distances ei t restrictions t er
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff ill inp t applicant response yes, no, n a into eval ation tool pon validation a ainst project description, location and narrative explanation provided If staff opinion on potential to introd ce ne connections differs from applicant, staff ill follo p it applicant to clarify o scale applied
Appendix B : plan2040
134 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 13 –
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
e ent ete t eet e e ent e . .
e ea e e ain
ide a i e ane ide a ed de ane e ent t an it t in e ent edian and ede t ian i na ten i n a in t a e ane nda t t e
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
ta i in t a icant e n e e n n.a. int e a ati n t n a idati n a ain t ect de c i ti n and na ati e e anati n ided. dditi na ta e a at i e ie na ati e ided and c ec e t dete ine e ati e de ee c ete t eet e e ent t e i e ented in t e ect a in t e in ca e
ete t eet e e ent e c ec ed ete t eet e e ent e ained in na ati e and ect de c i ti n
ne ete t eet e e ent c ec ed and ete t eet e e ent e ained in na ati e and ect de c i ti n
ete t eet e e ent e c ec ed and ete t eet e e ent e ained in na ati e and ect de c i ti n
ee ete t eet e e ent e c ec ed and ete t eet e e ent e ained in na ati e and ect de c i ti n
ete t eet e e ent e c ec ed and ete t eet e e ent e ained in na ati e and ect de c i ti n
i e e ete t eet e e ent e c ec ed and ete t eet e e ent e ained in na ati e and ect de c i ti n
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 14 135 –
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
e ic t an tati n e ice e . .
e ea e e ain
te ide a e t nitie an a and ide t nc ea e in e enc e ice nc ea e in t a e ti e e ia i it t e
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
ta i in t a icant e n e e n n.a. int e a ati n t n a idati n a ain t ect de c i ti n cati n and na ati e e anati n ided. ta ini n n tentia t i e ic t an tati n e ice di e a icant ta i it a icant t c a i . ca e a ied.
Appendix B : plan2040
136 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 15 Safety and Security
a et and ec it i ei ted at t e ect c e. ac e ti n i a ed at . int .
te i a e a ati n c ite ia a ie t a candidate ‘ ect e ’.
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
ed ce in and ata it c a ate e . .
e ea e ide in ati n t e in
e ate ata itie in t e ect a ea e ate in ie in t e ect a ea
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
ta i in t a icant e n e e n n.a. int e a ati n t n a idati n t at ect a de c i ed ide an act a a et i e ent a ed n ect de c i ti n and na ati e explanation provided. Additionally, staff will input data for ‘number/rate of fatalities’ and ‘number/rate of injuries’ in project area by applying the following scales
e ate ata it ca e
ata it ata ided
ect ide i ited a et i e ent t add e ed ce ata itie t icant ided data e tin n ata itie . ata it ate in t e ect a ea.
ect ide i ited a et i e ent t add e ed ce ata itie and icant ided data e tin at ea t ne ata it ata it ate . in t e ect a ea.
ect ide i de ee a et i e ent t add e ed ce ata itie t icant ided data e tin n ata itie . ata it ate in t e ect a ea.
ect ide i de ee a et i e ent t add e ed ce ata itie and icant ided data e tin at ea t ne ata it ata it ate . in t e ect a ea.
ect ide i de ee a et i e ent t add e ed ce ata itie and icant ided data e tin e t an ne ata it in t e ect a ea.
e ate in ie ca e
n ata e anati n ided
ect ide i ited a et i e ent t add e ed ce in accident t icant ided data e tin n in ie . in ate in t e ect a ea.
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 16 137 roject provides for limited safety improvements to address/reduce injury accidents, and Applicant provided data reporting at least one injury or injury rate . in the project area.
roject provides for high degree of safety improvements to address/reduce injury accidents, but Applicant provided data reporting no injuries or . injury rate in the project area.
roject provides for high degree of safety improvements to address/reduce injury accidents, and Applicant provided data reporting at least one injury or injury rate . in the project area.
roject provides for high degree of safety improvements to address/reduce injury accidents, and Applicant provided data reporting more than one injury accident in the project area.
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
educe non motori ed crashes pedestrian/bicycle es/ o/ .A.
f yes, please provide information for the following
umber/rate of reported bicycle and pedestrian accidents f available, anticipated reduction
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff will input applicant response yes, no, n.a. into evaluation tool upon validation that project as described provides an actual safety improvement for non motori ed transportation based on project description, and narrative explanation provided. Additionally, staff will input data for ‘number/rate of reported bicycle and pedestrian accidents’ by applying the following scale:
o non motori ed accident data or explanation provided
roject provides for limited safety improvements to address/reduce non motori ed accidents, but Applicant provided data reporting no non motori ed crashes or . non motori ed crash rate in the project area.
roject provides for limited safety improvements to address/reduce non motori ed accidents, and Applicant provided data reporting at least one non motori ed crashes or . non motori ed crash rate in the project area.
roject provides for high degree of safety improvements to address/reduce non motori ed accidents, but Applicant provided data reporting no non motori ed crashes or . non motori ed crash rate in the project area.
roject provides for high degree of safety improvements to address/reduce non motori ed accidents, and Applicant provided data reporting at least one non motori ed crashes or . non motori ed crash rate in the project area.
roject provides for high degree of safety improvements to address/reduce non motori ed accidents, and Applicant provided data reporting more than one non motori ed accident in the project area. Appendix B : plan2040
138 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 17 –
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
mprove transportation system security es/ o/ .A.
f yes, please identify what security factors are being improved by the pro ect:
ncident response ovement of essential services in time of emergency vacuation routes ecurity features to public transportation facilities or vehicles signal pre emption technology ther
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff will input applicant response yes, no, n.a. into evaluation tool upon validation that pro ect as described provides improvement to transportation system security based on pro ect description, and narrative explanation provided. Additionally, staff will apply the following scale to account for the relative degree to which the pro ect improves transportation system security:
o security element boxes chec ed or explained in narrative
ne security element box chec ed and/or explained in narrative
wo security element boxes chec ed and/or explained in narrative
hree security element boxes chec ed and/or explained in narrative
our security element boxes chec ed and/or explained in narrative
ive or more security element boxes chec ed and/or explained in narrative
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 18 139 Preservation and Maintenance
reservation and aintenance is weighted at of the pro ect score. ach uestion is valued at . points.
ote: his goal evaluation criteria applies to all candidate ‘ ro ect ypes’ with the exception of Bike/Ped.
–
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
rolong the useful life of transportation system es/ o/ .A.
f yes, where applicable please provide the pavement condition roughness index and/or narrative explanation:
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff will input applicant response yes, no, n.a. into evaluation tool upon validation that pro ect as described does or does not provide for prolonged useful life of transportation system based on pro ect description, location, and narrative explanation provided. Additionally, the staff evaluator will consider the degree to which the pro ect area is in need of preservation and maintenance through consideration of pavement condition roughness index and/or applicant narrative describing the maintenance need in the pro ect area by applying the following scale:
o supporting data or narrative provided
avement ondition oughness ndex and/or pro ect as described provides for little prolonging of useful life of transportation system in an area of little preservation and maintenance need.
avement ondition oughness ndex and/or pro ect as described provides for some prolonging of useful life of transportation system in an area of some preservation and maintenance need.
avement ondition oughness ndex and/or pro ect as described provides for good prolonging of useful life of transportation system in an area of high preservation and maintenance need.
avement ondition oughness ndex and/or pro ect as described provides for very good prolonging of useful life of transportation system in an area of very high preservation and maintenance need.
Appendix B : plan2040
140 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 19 –
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
P o on the ef ife of id e inf a t ct e e / o/ . .
f e p ea e exp ain and p o ide the id e condition id e fficienc atin and hea th index of the faci it
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff wi inp t app icant e pon e e no n.a. into e a ation too pon a idation that p o ect a de c i ed doe o doe not p o ide fo p o on ed ef ife of id e inf a t ct e a ed on p o ect de c iption ocation and na ati e exp anation p o ided. Pe fede a e ation id e with a fficienc atin . a e e i i e to ecei e fede a f nd fo ep ace ent and id e with a fficienc atin a e e i i e to ecei e fede a f nd fo eha i itation taff wi e id e condition data p o ided the app icant and app the fo owin ca e to a e de ee of p o ect need
o ata P o ided
B id e fficienc atin .
B id e fficienc atin .
B id e fficienc atin
B id e fficienc atin .
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
P o on the ef ife of t an po tation faci itie o f eet e / o/ . .
f e p ea e exp ain and p o ide if a ai a e
e of f eet ehic e f e t pe eha i itation to top and/o tation
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff wi inp t app icant e pon e e no n.a. into e a ation too pon a idation that p o ect a de c i ed doe o doe not p o ide fo p o on ed ef ife of t an po tation faci itie o f eet a ed on p o ect de c iption ocation and na ati e exp anation p o ided. o ca e app ied. Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 20 141 Environmental and Air Quality
n i on enta and i a it i wei hted at of the p o ect co e. ach e tion i a ed at point .
ote hi oa e a ation c ite ia app ie to a candidate ‘P o ect pe ’.
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
ini i e ai a it i pact e / o/ . .
f e p ea e exp ain and p o ide an of the fo owin info ation
ehic e ho of de a i ion o the
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff wi inp t app icant e pon e e no n.a. into e a ation too pon a idation that p o ect a de c i ed doe o doe not p o ide fo ini i ed ai a it i pact o ai a it enefit a ed on p o ect de c iption ocation and na ati e exp anation p o ided. dditiona taff wi app the fo owin ca e to a e the de ee to which p o ect i ike to ini i e ai a it i pact
– pp icant check ox o o /
– pp icant check ox e t no data o na ati e p o ided to exp ain potentia i pact of p o ect on ehic e o of e a and e tin ed ction in e i ion .
– pp icant check ox e and data o na ati e p o ided how itt e potentia to ini i e ai a it i pact in p o ect a ea d e to e ow epo ted ehic e ho of de a exi tin and/o e ow expected ed ction in ehic e ho of de a o f t e e i ion e tin f o the p o ect and/o p o ect how itt e potentia to di e t pa en e t ip to non e ittin o ow e ittin ode .
heck ox e and data o na ati e p o ided how o e potentia to ini i e ai a it i pact in p o ect a ea d e to ow epo ted ehic e ho of de a exi tin and/o ow expected ed ction in ehic e ho of de a o f t e e i ion e tin f o the p o ect and/o p o ect how o e potentia to di e t pa en e t ip to non e ittin o ow e ittin ode .
heck ox e and data o na ati e p o ided how ood potentia to ini i e ai a it i pact in p o ect a ea d e to a e a e epo ted ehic e ho of de a exi tin and/o a e a e expected ed ction in ehic e ho of de a o f t e e i ion e tin f o the p o ect and/o p o ect how ood potentia to di e t pa en e t ip to non e ittin o ow e ittin ode .
heck ox e and data o na ati e p o ided how e ood potentia to ini i e ai a it i pact in p o ect a ea d e to a o e a e a e epo ted ehic e ho of de a exi tin and/o a o e a e a e expected ed ction in ehic e ho of de a o f t e e i ion e tin f o the p o ect and/o p o ect how e ood potentia to di e t pa en e t ip to non e ittin o ow e ittin
Appendix B : plan2040 ode .
142 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 21
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
ini i e i act n nat a and c t a e ce e . .
e ea e e ain and identi n n ect i act c a
ndan e ed t eatened ecie e i nated i d i e a ea ic t a and ate e ce ate ec a e a ea e ce ti na a e a it t ea i t ica and c t a e ce t e
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
ta i in t a icant e n e e n n.a. int e a ati n t n a idati n t at ect a de c i ed d e d e n t ide ini i ed i act n nat a and c t a e ce a ed n ect de c i ti n cati n and na ati e e anati n ided. dditi na ta i a t e in ca e t a e t e de ee t ic ect i i e t ini i e nat a and c t a e ce i act
i act n nat a c t a e ce e ected a a e t t i ect
itt e i act n nat a c t a e ce e ected a a e t t i ect and e i act e ected t ect inc de ati act e ediati n iti ati n t ate ie
e i act n nat a c t a e ce e ected a a e t t i ect and i i act e ected t ect inc de ati act e ediati n iti ati n t ate ie
i i act n nat a c t a e ce e ected a a e t t i ect and e i i act e ected t ect inc de ati act e ediati n iti ati n t ate ie
e i i act n nat a c t a e ce e ected a a e t t i ect e i i act e ected and ect inc de n n ati act e ediati n iti ati n t ate ie
t e e i act n nat a c t a e ce e ected a a e t t i ect ect i ata a ed.
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 22 143 Transportation and Land Use Integration
an tati n and and e nte ati n i ei ted at t e ect c e. ac e ti n i a ed at . int .
te i a e a ati n c ite ia a ie t a candidate ‘ ect e ’ with the exception of Bridge and ai ect .
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
te in i de e ent ede e ent n ie d ite e . .
e ea e e ain
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
ta i in t a icant e n e e n n.a. int e a ati n t n a idati n t at ect a de c i ed d e d e n t te in i de e ent n ie d ede e ent a ed n ect de c i ti n cati n and na ati e e anati n ided. dditi na ta i a t e in ca e t a e t e e e tentia de e ent i act t e ect
icant c ec and indicated n tentia ect t te in i de e ent
icant c ec e na ati e ided a icant and ta e ie ect cati n and de c i ti n indicate itt e tentia ect t te in i de e ent.
icant c ec e na ati e ided a icant and ta e ie ect cati n and de c i ti n indicate e tentia ect t te in i de e ent.
icant c ec e na ati e ided a icant and ta e ie ect cati n and de c i ti n indicate d tentia ect t te in i de e ent.
icant c ec e na ati e ided a icant and ta e ie ect cati n and de c i ti n indicate e d tentia ect t te in i de e ent.
icant c ec e na ati e ided a icant and ta e ie ect cati n and de c i ti n indicate eat tentia ect t te in i de e ent.
Appendix B : plan2040
144 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 23
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
ed ce per capita ehic e i e tra e ed e o
f e p ea e exp ain
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff wi inp t app icant re pon e e no n a into e a ation too pon a idation that pro ect a de cri ed doe or doe not ha e potentia to red ce per capita ehic e i e tra e ed a ed on pro ect de cription ocation and narrati e exp anation pro ided dditiona taff wi app the fo owing ca e to a e the e e of potentia i pact of the pro ect on per capita
pp icant chec ox o or and indicated no potentia for pro ect to red ce per capita
pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate itt e potentia for pro ect to red ce per capita ehic e i e tra e ed thro gh di er ion of pa enger trip to non ode or otherwi e red cing the ength of a to trip re ired to reach de tination in the pro ect area
pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate o e potentia for pro ect to red ce per capita ehic e i e tra e ed thro gh di er ion of pa enger trip to non ode or otherwi e red cing the ength of a to trip re ired to reach de tination in the pro ect area
pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate good potentia for pro ect to red ce per capita ehic e i e tra e ed thro gh di er ion of pa enger trip to non ode or otherwi e red cing the ength of a to trip re ired to reach de tination in the pro ect area
pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate er good potentia for pro ect to red ce per capita ehic e i e tra e ed thro gh di er ion of pa enger trip to non ode or otherwi e red cing the ength of a to trip re ired to reach de tination in the pro ect area
pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate great potentia for pro ect to red ce per capita ehic e i e tra e ed thro gh di er ion of pa enger trip to non ode or otherwi e red cing the ength of a to trip re ired to reach de tination in the pro ect area
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 24 145
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
pro e or pport tran infra tr ct re in exi ting or p anned growth area e o
f e p ea e exp ain
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff wi inp t app icant re pon e e no n a into e a ation too pon a idation that pro ect wi in fact pport or i pro e oca de ignated exi ting or p anned growth area a de ignated in oca it co prehen i e p an and or a identified a a r an e e op ent rea or i e area in the ran eed e ent n ca e of taff a idation differing fro app icant re pon e taff wi fo ow p with app icant for c arification o ca e app ied
Applicant is instructed to provide the following:
ro ote wa ing or i e friend ixed e de e op ent e o
f e p ea e exp ain
cce anage ent o icie ther
RRTPO Staff Evaluation Method:
taff wi inp t app icant re pon e e no n a into e a ation too pon a idation that pro ect a de cri ed doe or doe not pro ote wa ing or i e friend ixed e de e op ent a ed on pro ect de cription ocation and narrati e exp anation pro ided dditiona taff wi app the fo owing ca e to a e the e e of potentia for the pro ect to pro ote wa ing i e friend de e op ent
pp icant chec ox o or and indicated no potentia for pro ect to pro ote wa ing or i e friend ixed e de e op ent
pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate itt e potentia for pro ect to pro ote wa ing or i e friend ixed e de e op ent
pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate o e potentia for pro ect to pro ote wa ing or i e friend ixed e de e op ent Appendix B : plan2040
146 2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 25 pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate good potentia for pro ect to pro ote wa ing or i e friend ixed e de e op ent
pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate er good potentia for pro ect to pro ote wa ing or i e friend ixed e de e op ent
pp icant chec ox e narrati e pro ided app icant and taff re iew of pro ect ocation and de cription indicate great potentia for pro ect to pro ote wa ing or i e friend ixed e de e op ent
Appendix B : plan2040
2040 MTP 'Project Evaluation Tool' - Methodology Report -- 26 147 Project Inclusion Guidance for 2040 MTP Project List
Federal air quality conformity regulations dictate what projects, at a minimum must be included in the fiscally constrained project list of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) document.
The following description of what constitutes a “regionally significant” project is from Part 93, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations:
“Regionally Significant Project means a transportation project (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel.”
To build upon the requirements outlined above, staff proposes two levels of projects to be included: 1) those projects that must be specifically listed in the plan, and 2) those projects that must be consistent with the plan.
Please note that newly submitted or existing candidate projects from the 2035 LRTP will be subject to the project ranking process. Projects that are in the SYIP/TIP and local/private projects that are regionally significant will be individually listed but will not be subject to the project ranking process.
Those projects that must be specifically listed would include the following:
1. Regionally Significant- capacity increases on principal arterials & above and/or on modeled network including fixed guideway transit projects. 2. SYIP/TIP Projects- projects in the current Six Year Improvement Plan and Transportation Improvement Program. 3. Locally Preferred Alternatives- selected from an alternatives analysis under the FTA Capital Investment Grants Program. 4. New Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects- Standalone projects, does not include bicycle/pedestrian facilities that are included as part of a highway project. 5. New Public Transit Projects- new routes and significant route expansion, significant service area expansion, vehicle replacement and major equipment purchases. 6. Rail Projects- more than $3 million. 7. Reconstruction, Safety, Enhancement and Other Projects- more than $3 million.
Appendix B : plan2040 Project Inclusion Guidance August 26, 2015 148 Those projects that must be consistent with the plan include the following:
1. Reconstruction, Safety, Enhancement and Other Projects- less than $3 million. These projects are accounted for through the MTP’s revenue projections and the establishment of a certain amount of this future revenue for such projects.
These guidelines are not meant to exclude projects from being specifically listed against the wishes of a submitting jurisdiction/agency. The decision whether or not to specifically list a project in the MTP ultimately rests with the associated jurisdiction/agency. Appendix B : plan2040
Project Inclusion Guidance August 26, 2015 149 plan 2040 Weighting and Project Scoring Framework (as Approved by MTP AC 9/30/15)
Points HB2 Criteria and plan 2040 Goals Application Questions related to plan 2040 Goals Available Per Weighting Question
Q1. Improve areas of localized congestion within project area? 7.5 Congestion 15% Congestion Mitigation Mitigation Q2. Improves system functionality through improvements? 7.5
Q1. Improve the Regional Multimodal Freight Network? 5 Freight Mobility Q2. Improve access to freight-intensive facilities? 5
Economic 20% Q1. Reduce travel times within the project area? 3.33 Development
System Reliability Q2. Increase public transportation service frequency and capacity? 3.33
Q3. Incorporate travel demand management (TDM) strategies? 3.33
Q1. Improve access to areas of employment? 5.00 Access to Employment Q2. Increase acccessibility to key regional activity centers with 5.00 emphasis on areas with high poverty rates?
Q1. Introduce new connections between existing travel patterns? 2.50 Accessibility 20% Q2. Eliminate/overcome barriers? 2.50 Multimodal Connectivity Q3. Implement Complete Streets elements? 2.50
Q4. Improves public transportation services? 2.50
Q1. Reduce injury and fatality crash rates? 3.33
Safety and Security Q2. Reduce non-motorized crashes? 3.33
Q3. Improve transportation system security? 3.33 Safety 20% Q1. Prolong the useful life of transportation system and 3.33 infrastructure?
Preservation & Maintenance Q2. Prolong the useful life of bridge infrastructure? 3.33
Q3. Prolong the useful life of transportation facilities or fleet? 3.33
Q1. Minimize Air Quality Impacts? 5 Environmental 10% Environmental and Air Quality Quality Q2. Minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources? 5
Q1. Promotes in-fill development or redevelopment of brownfield 3.75 sites? Q2. Reduces per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT)? 3.75 Transportation and Land Use Land Use 15% Q3. Improves or supports transportation infrastructure in existing Integration 3.75 and planned growth areas?
Q4. Promotes walking or bike-friendly, mixed-use development? 3.75
100.00 Appendix B : plan2040 Total Points Note: TPO Staff Methodology for scoring each question based on data provided in application is under development
150 this page intentionally left blank Appendix B : plan2040
151 152 Appendix C : plan2040
Survey Results
153 plan2040 Survey #1 SurveyMonkey
Q1 What are your top three goals for improving transportation in the Richmond Region? Please select only three goals and use the drop down boxes to indicate your first, second, and third most important goals with #1 being your most important goal.
Answered: 48 Skipped: 2
Access to Employment:...
Congestion Mitigation:...
Environmental and Air...
Freight Mobility:...
Multimodal Connectivity...
Preservation and...
Safety and Security:...
System Reliability:...
Transportation and Land Use...
012345678910
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Score
Access to Employment: Provide 29.17% 37.50% 25.00% 4.17% 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% connections to job centers, with an 7 9 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 24 7.83 emphasis on connections to high poverty areas
Congestion Mitigation: Support 36.84% 31.58% 15.79% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.53% 5.26% 0.00% improvements that address existing 7 6 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 19 7.37 and expected traffic congestion
Environmental and Air Quality: 20.00% 30.00% 20.00% 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% Promote projects that protect and 2 3 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 10 6.70 enhance the region's natural resources
Freight Mobility: Enhance freight 20.00% 0.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% 20.00%
Appendix C : plan2040 corridors to facilitate the movement of 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 5.30 good s in the region
154 1 / 7 plan2040 Survey #1 SurveyMonkey
Multimodal Connectivity: Improve 33.33% 18.52% 37.04% 0.00% 3.70% 3.70% 0.00% 3.70% 0.00% access to transportation options, 9 5 10 0 1 1 0 1 0 27 7.48 including public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian alternatives
Preservation and Maintenance: Ensure 31.58% 26.32% 26.32% 5.26% 5.26% 0.00% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% that existing infrastructure is 6 5 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 19 7.53 maintained in a consistent state of good repair
Safety and Security: Provide 27.78% 38.89% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 5.56% improvements that increase safety and 5 7 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 18 7.44 security for system users
System Reliability: Implement 27.78% 33.33% 22.22% 5.56% 5.56% 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% technologies and programs to improve 5 6 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 18 7.56 travel times and support the ease of travel
Transportation and Land Use 18.18% 22.73% 40.91% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 9.09% Integration: Support investments that 4 5 9 1 0 0 0 1 2 22 6.77 meet the needs of existing and future development Appendix C : plan2040
2 / 7 155 plan2040 Survey #1 SurveyMonkey
Q2 With limited financial resources, how would you prioritize these improvements based on the needs of the Richmond Region?
Answered: 50 Skipped: 0
Capacity improvements...
Expand and improve...
Maintain and repair...
Improve multimodal...
Create new sidewalks an...
Improve safety,...
Expand commuter...
012345678910
Low Medium High Total Weighted Average
Capacity improvements (adding lanes) to roads and/or highways 38.78% 40.82% 20.41% 19 20 10 49 1.82
Expand and improve existing public transportation service 14.58% 20.83% 64.58% 7 10 31 48 2.50
Maintain and repair highways, roads, and bridges 6.38% 21.28% 72.34% 3 10 34 47 2.66
Improve multimodal connections for freight and passenger train traffic 25.00% 39.58% 35.42% 12 19 17 48 2.10
Create new sidewalks and bicycle paths 19.15% 38.30% 42.55% 9 18 20 47 2.23
Improve safety, operations, and system reliability (such as signal improvements, accident cl earance, and 12.50% 54.17% 33.33% mobile technology integration) 6 26 16 48 2.21
Expand commuter service programs (such as carpool and park and ride lots) 37.50% 43.75% 18.75% 18 21 9 48 1.81 Appendix C : plan2040
156 3 / 7 plan2040 Survey #1 SurveyMonkey
Q3 Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns about the regional transportation system?
Answered: 17 Skipped: 33 Appendix C : plan2040
4 / 7 157 plan2040 Survey #1 SurveyMonkey
Q4 Thank you for participating in developing plan2040! How did you hear about the plan or this survey?
Answered: 32 Skipped: 18
RRPDC Website
Public Notice in Newspaper
From a Friend/Cowor...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
RRPDC Website 40.63% 13
Twitter 0.00% 0
Facebook 0.00% 0
Email 40.63% 13
Public Notice in Newspaper 0.00% 0
From a Friend/Coworker/Community Leader 18.75% 6
Total 32 Appendix C : plan2040
158 5 / 7 plan2040 Survey #1 SurveyMonkey
Q5 Let us know who you are! I am with... (Choose one)
Answered: 43 Skipped: 7
Federal/State/L ocal Governm...
Non-Profit
Advocacy or Interest Group
Private Sector Stakeholder
Interested Citizen
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Federal/State/Local Government 18.60% 8
Non-Profit 30.23% 13
Advocacy or Interest Group 16.28% 7
Private Sector Stakeholder 6.98% 3
Interested Citizen 27.91% 12
Total 43 Appendix C : plan2040
6 / 7 159 plan2040 Survey #1 SurveyMonkey
Q6 If you would like to be notified of upcoming activity related to plan2040, please provide your contact information.
Answered: 15 Skipped: 35
Answer Choices Responses
Name 93.33% 14
Company 66.67% 10
Address 73.33% 11
Address 2 13.33% 2
City/Town 80.00% 12
State/Province 80.00% 12
ZIP/Postal Code 80.00% 12
Country 26.67% 4
Email Address 46.67% 7
Phone Number 33.33% 5 Appendix C : plan2040
160 7 / 7 this page intentionally left blank Appendix C : plan2040
161 162 Appendix D : plan2040
Amendments Documentation
163 the TAC meeting agenda under 2040 Metropolitan that requires public review and comment, redemonstration of the RRPDC Transportation Transportation Plan fiscal constraint, or a conformity Director’s Report. Initial action Update determination (for metropolitan was taken at the February 2, 2017 transportation plans and TIPs meeting to authorize the plan Amendments involving “non-exempt” projects amendment and public review Documentation in non-attainment and mainte- period. Final action to approve nance areas)… the amendment was taken on March 2, 2017. Definition of Amendment Revisions to the 2040 MTP 2040 MTP Update The three discrepancies identi- update that have been submitted Amendments Documentation fied by FHWA are listed below, for public review, air quality with staff response and actions conformity analysis if applicable, March 2, 2017 taken as part of the amendment: and TPO action. Amendments primarily involve projects On December 13, 2016, the FHWA: Project allocations noted in the Constrained RRTPO and the MTP Advisory contained in the online LRTP Projects List of the Fiscally Committee were provided a (Timeband #1) are different from Constrained Plan (i.e. projects memo from Barbara Nelson, project allocations contained added or deleted and changes to RRPDC Transportation Director, in the LRTP (Timeband #1) project schedules, scope, etc.). which detailed a formatting received. RRTPO staff indicated that the cause for this change Federal regulations for the TPO’s error found in the plan2040 planning and programming Constrained Project List for was the “Previous Allocation” process define “amendment” as Timeband 1 and the correction column being inadvertently follows (see 23 CFR Part 450, action. As stated in the memo, the omitted. Other discrepancies Subpart A – Transportation proposed correction was consis- do not appear to be related to Planning and Programming tent with the RRTPO approval of the omission of the “Previous Definitions; Section 450.104, the plan document on October Allocation” column. 6, 2016, and it did not materially Definitions): Response: The FY17-FY22 impact the Constrained Projects Allocations and Total Allocations List. Columns have been added “Amendment” means a minor In response to the formatting to Constrained Projects List revision to a long-range correction, FHWA requested Timeband 1 to reflect the FY17- statewide or metropolitan trans- that the RRTPO clarify three FY22 SYIP. The online document portation plan, TIP or STIP additional discrepancies through was updated in December 2016. that involves a major change to a an amendment to . Following final approval of the project included in a metropol- plan2040 Through email correspondence proposed amendment to the itan transportation plan, TIP, on January 3, 2017, FHWA stated plan, the revised document will or STIP, including the addition that resolving the discrepancies be posted online. or deletion of a project or a with an amendment will ensure major change in design concept FHWA: The Allocation that the validity of plan2040 or design scope (e.g., changing plan2040 Guideline Timeband 1 (FY16- is not called into question as project termini or the number of FY21) is inconsistent with the VDOT and FHWA take action to
2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update Transportation 2040 Metropolitan through traffic lanes). Changes Constrained Project advance projects. The TAC was plan2040 to projects that are included list: Timeband 1 (FY17-FY22 briefed on this item at the January only for illustrative purposes SYIP). 10, 2017 meeting and additional 164 do not require an amendment. information was included in An amendment is a revision Response: The time periods Projects List in order to maintain Public Review for the Revenue Projections, fiscal constraint inplan2040 . Allocation Guidelines, and To identify these two projects, The public review process for the Constrained Project Lists have procedures consistent with the plan2040 amendment is listed in been updated for consistency, as development of the Constrained Appendix E of the RRTPO Public follows: Projects List were followed Participation Plan (June 2016). using the criteria of total project The public review was held for Timeband 1 (FY17- FY22) scores and available revenue to two weeks from February 6 to Timeband 2 (FY23- FY28) maximize the number of projects February 21, 2017. No public Timeband 3 (FY29- FY34) included in the Constrained comments were received on the Timeband 4 (FY35- FY40) Projects List. proposed amendment. FHWA: Revenue projections in The two projects proposed to the LRTP Constrained Project be moved to the Unconstrained list: Timeband 1 (FY17-FY22 Projects List are as follows: SYIP) considers an additional year worth of projects and Henpeck Road (VA 665) Safety allocations. and Shoulder Improvements in New Kent County Response: The Revenue Projections have been adjusted N Gayton Interchange at I-64 in to reflect the same Timebands Henrico County as the Constrained Projects List, starting with FY17- FY22 To complete the proposed amend- in Timeband 1. This adjust- ment, the Fiscally Constrained ment resulted in the removal of Plan chapter of the plan2040 approximately $122 million in document was amended with FY16 revenues that were origi- the changes outlined in the nally included in the constrained responses to the noted FHWA long range plan. The revenue concerns. Additionally, narrative projections by Timeband edits were made to ensure consis- resulting from this change are tency between the text of the summarized in the table to the plan and the proposed changes right. to the Revenue Projections and Constrained Projects List. In order to account for revenue decreases, two projects have moved from the Constrained Projects List to the Unconstrained
plan2040 Revenues plan2040 Revenues Revenue Change (RRTPO Approved 4-10-16) (RRTPO Amended 3-2-17) FY 16-21 $ 565,282,543 FY 17-22 $ 555,760,232 $ (9,522,310) FY 22-27 $ 639,361,185 FY 23-28 $ 626,396,893 $ (12,964,293)
FY 28-33 $ 600,748,329 FY 29-34 $ 600,614,046 $ (134,283) Plan Update Transportation 2040 Metropolitan FY 34-40 $ 683,223,643 FY 35-40 $ 583,675,338 $ (99,548,304) Total $ 2,488,615,700 $ 2,366,446,509 $ (122,169,190) 165 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update Transportation 2040 Metropolitan
166 this page intentionally left blank 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update Transportation 2040 Metropolitan
167 Part 2: plan2040 Technical Document Table of Contents
168 Regional Demographics
184 Land Use and Environmental Mitigation
198 Regional Road Network
218 Regional Transit
228 Bicycle and Pedestrian
240 Rail in the Richmond Region
250 Freight and Intermodal Systems
266 Congestion Management
284 Transportation Demand Management
296 Transportation Innovations
302 Travel Demand Modeling
308 Central Virginia Emergency Management Alliance
(CVEMA)
168 Regional Demographics
To anticipate the future transportation needs in the Richmond region, it is essential to anticipate demands on the system. Development patterns and future population size, including demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, affect people’s modes of travel. The transportation network of an area influences where people live and work, and employment patterns are identified and considered in order to address changing commuting patterns and habits of the region’s population. The planning process relies on current residential patterns and projections of future population trends to identify the magnitude of anticipated travel demand.
Data Sources and Methods To evaluate the study area, population and employment densities will be examined. The density patterns enable a more accurate representation of conditions within the study area due to the varying sizes of the transportation analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are defined as areas of activity served by one or two major roadways. TAZs serve as the base unit for socioeconomic data characteristics used in various plans and studies.
The 2012 base year for housing and population data was collected with the cooperation of localities tracking local residential development. All localities track growth through a Continuing, Cooperative, and Comprehensive (3-C) data collection process. The base year 2012 data population estimates for localities were derived from a combination of July 1, 2010 U.S. Census estimates and local 3-C Reports. Base year data cannot be more than 10 years old.
To create 3-C data, jurisdictions estimate housing unit totals and local population by tracking monthly building and demolition permit activity. The population distribution was developed by working closely with each jurisdiction to inform development scenarios. These relied on a combination of local residential development pipeline activity, existing and future land use, and comprehensive local land use plans for multiple horizon years.
169 In many cases, the locality’s Study Area the Powhite Parkway and the population estimates varied Downtown Expressway. In The Richmond region consists of from the 2012 U.S. Census Henrico County, Route 895 nine jurisdictions: The Town of estimates. All jurisdictions provides an east-west link Ashland, the counties of Charles developed 3-C data using between I-95 and I-295. In City, Chesterfield, Goochland, regional standards to create Chesterfield County, the Powhite Hanover, Henrico, New Kent the 2012 base year housing Parkway and Chippenham and Powhatan and city of and population estimates. Parkway serve as major linkage Richmond. Portions of Charles Future year 2040 projections highways connecting the county City, Goochland, New Kent, and are based on the 3-C base to the City of Richmond, Henrico Powhatan counties fall outside year of 2012 and not the County, and to I-95. U.S. primary of the TPO’s study area. A decennial Census year 2010. routes, including U.S. Routes 1, portion of southern Chesterfield This document uses base year 33, 60, 250, 301 and U.S Route falls into neighboring Tri-Cities 2012 data for population, 360, are an integral part of the MPO. The town of Ashland is households, automobiles and region’s roadway network. included in Hanover County. employment data in the TAZ The RRTPO encompasses an geography. The Richmond region is served important crossroads for the by an inland deepwater port on Uses Mid-Atlantic states. the James River that connects regional goods with global Interstate 95 (I-95) passes The socioeconomic data markets. Passenger and air cargo through the Richmond region developed by the RRTPO service is offered through the and is the major north-south is mainly used for air quality Richmond International Airport connector on the east coast. conformity analysis and located in eastern Henrico Interstate 64 (I-64) passes creating population forecasts. County. Major rail facilities are through the region and intersects Title VI/Environmental owned and operated by CSX and I-95 near downtown Richmond. Justice Analysis compli- Norfolk Southern and radiate I-64 is an important east-west ance of plan2040 requires out in all directions connecting connector that provides access identification of tradition- Richmond with major U.S. to Hampton Roads as well as to ally disadvantaged groups markets including Washington, points across the country. Other including minority, low D.C. and other northeast important highways within the income, elderly, those with a corridor cities, as well as Chicago region include Interstate 295, disability, and Limited English and Atlanta. which forms a bypass for the Proficiency populations. US northern and eastern portions Decennial Census 2010 Amtrak provides passenger train of the region, connecting I-64 to and American Community service to Washington, D.C. and I-95 near Ashland on the north Survey 2008 – 2013 5-year points north to Boston, east to and to I-95 on the south side of estimates have been used Newport News, west to Chicago, Petersburg. Virginia Route 288 as the source for these data. and south to Florida. Higher forms a bypass for the southern The Title VI/Environmental speed rail service from Main and western portions of the Justice Analysis uses data for Street Station in downtown region, connecting I-64 to I-95 the census tract geography. Richmond to Union Station in through Goochland, Powhatan Washington, D.C. is currently and Chesterfield counties. In under review, as is high-speed Regional Demographics Regional the City of Richmond, Interstate service from Richmond south to 195 connects I-64 and I-95 to Raleigh, North Carolina. 170 Population and jurisdictions, and this is projected by Henrico and Chesterfield Household Change to remain stable in 2040. These counties. jurisdictions are forecasted to The largest gains in population Between 2012 and 2040, the house a total of 340,000 of the are projected in Henrico and Richmond region is expected to Richmond region’s projected Chesterfield, which are forecasted see continued strong population 429,000 new residents, 66 to add 132,000 and 187,000 new growth, as it did in the previous percent of its new households. residents respectively. Richmond forty year period. The total popu- Figure 1.1 and 1.2 demonstrates is projected to grow by around lation is forecasted to grow by the distribution of population 22,000 residents. The greatest 42 percent to around 1,500,000 growth by jurisdiction in 2012 total population increase in a residents. The City of Richmond and 2040. The majority of the rural area is forecasted to occur in and the Counties of Henrico and population increases in these core Hanover (65,000 new residents). Chesterfield form the region’s jurisdictions are driven by growth urban core and suburban ring. in the suburban ring formed The percent change in popu- Around 80 percent of the region’s lation and percent change in population lives in these three number of households are shown in Figurefig. 1.2.3 and Figurefig. 1.3.4. Growth rates for the population and total number of households follow similar patterns. Jurisdictions are clas- sified by projected population growth rate below: • High growth rates are forecasted in the suburb of Chesterfield (58%) and the rural counties of Hanover (54%) and Powhatan (52%)
• Moderate growth rates are forecasted in the rural counties of New Kent (43%) and Goochland (38%) the suburb of Henrico
fig. 1.1. Distribution of Population Growth in the Richmond Region by Jurisdiction • Low growth rates are forecasted in the City of Richmond (10%) and Charles Percent Share of Percent Share Household Households 2012 Regional Households 2040 Regional Change 2012- City County (33%) Households 2012 Households 2040 2040 (%) Jurisdiction Charles City 2,979 1% 3,949 1% 33% New Kent 7,149 2% 10,303 2% 44% Regional Population Goochland 8,081 2% 11,353 2% 40% Powhatan 9,635 2% 15,141 3% 57% Density and Growth Hanover 37,234 9% 56,352 10% 51% Richmond 90,266 23% 100,114 18% 11% Maps 1.1 and 1.2 show popula- Henrico 127,720 32% 182,010 32% 43% Chesterfield 116,981 29% 185,833 33% 59% tion density in 2012 and 2040, Region Total 400,045 565,055 41% illustrating that the greatest Demographics Regional fig. 1.2. Population and Household Size By Jurisdiction, Ranked from Smallest to Largest by population density is forecasted Projected Population Size in 2040 in and beyond the I-295/Route 171 map 1.1. 2012 Population Density in the Richmond Region Regional Demographics Regional
172 map 1.2. 2040 Population Density in the Richmond Region 288 beltway. At the present The City of Richmond and Richmond and Goochland time, the density in this beltway Charles City are projected to are projected to decrease their is generally above 1,000 persons increase the least. These trends shares of the overall number of per square mile. However, higher are in line with population automobiles while Hanover and levels of population density and household growth, and Chesterfield are projected to also exist beyond the beltway, Chesterfield and Henrico are increase from 2012 to 2040 (Ffig. stretching southwest along expected to experience substan- 1.5). All other jurisdictions will Route 360, south of Route 288 tial gains, while Richmond is remain proportionally the same along Route 1 and I-95, near forecasted to experience minimal while the total number of auto- Mechanicsville along Route 360, gains. mobiles increases throughout. near Atlee along Route 301, Total Total the Town of Ashland, and near Jurisdiction Automobiles Automobiles % Change Wyndham in western Henrico. 2012 2040 Refer to Map 1.1 for 2012 popu- Charles City 6,670 8,783 32% lation density. New Kent 17,815 25,602 44% For 2040, Map 1.2 illustrates Goochland 19,614 27,863 42% forecasted population density, Powhatan 23,567 36,947 57% highlighting where density is Hanover 87,146 132,844 52% expected to occur. As depicted Richmond 124,865 138,726 11% in the map, the regional popula- Henrico 236,826 358,763 51% tion is projected to grow within and beyond the I-295/Route Chesterfield 248,418 406,872 64% 288 beltway in the southwest Region Total 764,921 1,136,400 49% and southeastern portions of fig. 1.3. Automobiles 2012 and 2040 in the Richmond Region by Jurisdiction, Ranked from Chesterfield. Also, growth Smallest to Largest by Projected Totals in 2040 into eastern Henrico, southern parts of Hanover, and eastern Goochland is projected over the next 28 years based on past trends and knowledge of local plans in the development pipeline. Automobile Ownership
The region as a whole is expected to increase its total number of automobiles by almost 50 percent between 2012 and 2040, an increase of over 370,000. Chesterfield is projected to expe- rience the largest increase in total fig. 1.4. Percent Share of Total Automobiles in the Richmond Region by Jurisdiction number of vehicles, representing the greatest portion of vehicles Regional Demographics Regional owned in the region (Ffig. 1.4). 173 Chesterfield and Henrico will Jurisdiction Employment 2012 Employment 2040 Change 2012-2040 (%) remain the jurisdictions with the highest number of automo- Charles City 1,419 1,643 16% biles, both proportionally and in New Kent 3,653 6,289 72% absolute terms. Powhatan 5,406 15,307 183% Employment Goochland 12,509 26,450 111% Hanover 45,888 72,087 57% Suburban and rural employment Richmond 146,268 172,290 18% growth is projected to continue Chesterfield 116,434 181,391 56% at a higher rate than urban Henrico 178,665 255,266 43% growth. Westward development Region Total 510,242 730,683 43% into rural jurisdictions is evident fig. 1.5. Employment by Jurisdiction in Powhatan and Goochland’s significant projected employ- ment increases (183% and 111% respectively). Employment in Hanover and Chesterfield is expected to increase by 56 percent in both localities. Henrico is projected to remain the largest employer in the region, with a total of 255,266 total jobs by 2040 or 35 percent of all regional employment (Ffig. 1.6 and Ffig. 1.7). As defined by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the top three indus- tries are Retail, Accommodation & Food Services, Other Services fig. 1.6. Percent Share of Total Jobs in the Richmond Region by Jurisdiction (except Public Amin), Health Care and Social Assistance, and Educational Services (fig. 1.8). Industry Employment % The largest health care providers Retail, Accommodation & Food Services 111,774 22% are VCU Health System, Bon Health Care and Social Assistance 70,899 14% Secours Richmond Health Educational Services 49,530 10% System, and HCA of Virginia. Finance and Insurance 35,633 7% The largest employers in educa- Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 34,378 7% tion are Virginia Commonwealth Administrative and support and waste manage- University, and the school ment and remediation services 34,285 7% boards of Henrico, Chesterfield, Public Administration 34,477 7% Richmond and Hanover. Construction 29,171 6% Regional Demographics Regional Finance and Insurance, the fifth Manufacturing 24,499 5% largest industry in the region, is Management of Companies and Enterprises 21,343 4% 174 fig. 1.7. Employment by NAICS Sector also worth noting as Anthem, of the employment concentra- target population in all tracts SunTrust, and Capital One are tion is within the I-295/Route in the region. Special popula- top 20 employers, and Capital 288 beltway, with exceptions in tions meeting the requirements One is the largest employer in Ashland and southern Hanover, of Title VI and Environmental the region (Ffig. 1.9). The top ten and near Mechanicsville, Chester, Justice analysis standards include industries comprise 87 percent Swift Creek, and Wyndham. minorities, households in poverty, of the region’s economy. Such a the elderly, individuals with a diverse regional economy avoids As indicated in Mmap 1.4 disability, and individuals with over exposure during economic significant concentration ofLimited English Proficiency. downturns, or employment losses employment is expanding to The data provided was based on areas beyond the beltway along Column1 Top 20 Employers ACS 2009 to 2013 data. 1 Capital One these same corridors in 2040. 2 Virginia Commonwealth University Based on current development 3 Henrico School Board Minority Population 4 Chesterfield School Board activity, employment is expected 5 VCU Health System to expand into areas southwest 6 Bon Secours Richmond Health System Minority populations are often 7 HCA of Virginia of Magnolia Green along Route underrepresented in the trans- 8 City of Richmond 9 City of Richmond School Board 360, Meadowville Technology portation planning process, 10 County of Henrico Park along the James River, and exclusion has resulted in 11 County of Chesterfield 12 Altria White Oak Technology Park negative impacts on this group 13 Wal Mart adjacent to Route 60, and East historically. Minority members 14 Hanover School Board 15 Martin's Creek Business Park in eastern form a growing portion of the 16 Department of Defense Goochland. population, particularly in urban 17 Veterans Affairs 18 Suntrust areas, but have experienced 19 Anthem Special Populations 20 Kroger high barriers to participation in fig. 1.8. Largest Regional Employers for Title VI and decision-making. Members Environmental Justice of the Minority Population are Planning persons who identify them- that occur when a single major selves as American Indian and company leaves the region. This Title VI of the Civil Rights Alaska Native, Black or African was most evident when, during Act of 1964 and Executive American, Asian, Hispanic or the peak of the recession in 2008 Order 12898 on Environmental Latino and Native Hawaiian and 2009, a number of large Justice (discussed in detail in the and Other Pacific Islanders. It employers relocated or dissolved. Environmental Justice section of includes all people who have not the plan2040 Vision document) identified themselves as Non- Employment Density direct every recipient agency to Hispanic White in US Census identify and address the effects of The concentration of employ- race and ethnicity question. all programs, policies, and activ- ment in the region is expected ities on populations protected As shown in Ffig. 1.10 the popu- to increase in areas beyond from discrimination and those lation of different races as well as the I-295/Route 288 beltway. traditionally disadvantaged the calculated minority popula- Employment density, based on groups, defined as Minority tion for each jurisdiction in the location of jobs per square mile, and Low-Income Populations. Richmond region. The percentage is currently greatest in downtown Tracts are designated concen- of the total population in the and along major corridors within Richmond region identifying as tration areas if its percentage of Demographics Regional the region, as illustrated in Mmap the sensitive population exceeds a racial or ethnic minority is 40 1.3 and Mmap 1.34. Similar to the average percentage of the percent. Twenty-eight percent of existing population density, most 175 map 1.3. 2012 Employment Density in the Richmond Region Regional Demographics Regional
176 map 1.4. 2040 Employment Density in the Richmond Region
Native American Hawaiian Non- Black or Total Hispanic or Indian and and Other Some Two or Minority Minority Jurisdiction Hispanic African Asian Population Latino Alaska Pacific Other Race More Races Total Percentage White American Native Islander alone Charles City 7,205 2,941 109 3,485 497 14 9 3 147 4,264 59.2% Chesterfield 320,430 207,449 23,612 70,505 779 10,975 133 652 6,325 112,981 35.3% Goochland 21,565 16,591 456 4,395 20 8 0 2 93 4,974 23.1% Hanover 100,328 85,264 2,284 9,117 280 1,396 18 267 1,702 15,064 15.0% Henrico 311,314 175,825 15,622 90,324 939 20,969 59 583 6,993 135,489 43.5% New Kent 18,791 15,038 423 2,794 129 103 0 67 237 3,753 20.0% Powhatan 28,108 23,308 524 3,555 60 162 0 28 471 4,800 17.1% Richmond 207,878 81,985 12,970 101,673 271 4,615 54 259 6,051 125,893 60.6% Region Total 1,015,619 608,401 56,000 285,848 2,975 38,242 273 1,861 22,019 407,218 40.1% fig. 1.9. Minority Populations in the Richmond Region the regional population identifies Illustrated in Mmap 1.5, the The highest concentrations of as Black or African American, six percentage concentration of minority populations occur in percent identifies as Hispanic or minority populations in the the City of Richmond, eastern Latino, four percent identifies as Richmond region by census tract. Henrico County, northern Asian, and two percent identifies The regional average concentra- Chesterfield County adjoining as two or more races. tion of minority populations Richmond, and Charles City for census tracts is 42 percent. County. The majority of census Regional Demographics Regional
map 1.5. Minority Population Concentration in the Richmond Region, 2013 177 tracts with a percentage minority Income in Past 12 months population greater than the Jurisdiction Total Population Percentage regional average of 42 percent below poverty are located in the City and its level adjacent tracts, especially to the Charles City 7,190 850 11.8% northeast. Chesterfield 315,276 21,240 6.7% Goochland 19,335 1,081 5.6% Low Income Population Hanover 98,006 5,019 5.1% Henrico 307,669 32,877 10.7% Though the largest concentra- New Kent 18,238 1,074 5.9% tions of individuals below the Powhatan 24,841 1,347 5.4% poverty line reside in the City of Richmond 197,932 50,681 25.6% Richmond, there are significant Region Total 988,487 114,169 11.5% pockets of concentrated poverty Source: 2009-2013 ACS 5-Year Estimates Table B17001 in inner-ring suburbs. The total fig. 1.10. Low Income Population in the Richmond Region in 2013 number of individuals in poverty in Henrico and Chesterfield by the Census Bureau using jurisdiction in the Richmond exceeds the total living in the three factors: householder’s age, region. The regional average of City of Richmond. The Low size of the family, and number of low income population in the Income Population is defined as related children below 18 years region is almost 12 percent. persons or families whose house- old. Illustrated in Ffig. 1.11, the hold is at or below the poverty total number and percentage of The distribution of low income threshold, which is determined low income residents in each population in the Richmond Regional Demographics Regional
178 map 1.6. Low-Income Population Concentration in the Richmond Region, 2013 Percentage of region in 2013 is shown in Elderly Jurisdiction Total Population Elderly Mmap 1.6. As with the minority Population population, the majority of the Population low-income population is located Charles City 7,205 1,316 18.3% within the City of Richmond. Chesterfield 320,430 35,501 11.1% With the exception of the area Goochland 21,565 3,546 16.4% west of downtown, most census Hanover 100,328 13,772 13.7% tracts within the City show a Henrico 311,314 39,577 12.7% concentration of low-income population that is double the New Kent 18,791 2,398 12.8% regional average. Several census Powhatan 28,108 3,714 13.2% tracts in downtown Richmond Richmond 207,878 23,274 11.2% and areas immediately north Region Total 1,015,619 123,098 12.1% are shown to have more than Source: 2009-2013 ACS 3-Year Estimates Table B01001 thirty-five percent of the popu- fig. 1.11. Elderly Population in the Richmond Region in 2013 lation classified as low income. Portions of eastern and western According to American County show concentration of Henrico and areas immediately Community Survey 2009 to elderly population as well. around I-95 and US Route 2013 estimates, the Richmond 1/301 in south Richmond and region had 123,098 citizens Individuals with Chesterfield are also low-income age 65 or older, slightly over 12 Disabilities (Disability population concentration areas. percent of the planning district Status) population (Ffig. 1.12). Charles Elderly Population City County has the highest Transit service providers in percentage of elderly individ- the region are required to offer The fastest growing segment of uals (18%), followed closely by reasonable accommodations for the U.S. population is older adults. Goochland (16%). individuals with disabilities, and The number of elderly individ- this group must be represented in uals in the region is increasing Similarly, Mmap 1.7 shows the the transit planning process. This as Baby Boomers (born between concentration of the elderly group includes people affected by 1946 and 1964) continue to age, population by Census Tract in blindness, deafness, or a severe which will significantly impact 2013. The average percentage hearing or vision impairment demands on the transportation of elderly residents for all tracts and people who have a condition system. Driving will become in the region is 12.3 percent. A that substantially limits one or difficult or impossible for many census tract with a concentrated more basic physical activities, as they grow older, creating a elderly population is defined as such as walking or climbing growing need for public and para- having more than 12.3 percent of stairs. About 85 percent of indi- transit services. Improvements its residents over 65. The whole viduals with disabilities live in in roadway signage, lighting, or of Charles City and Goochland, suburban and rural counties that other highway system elements parts of Powhatan and New rely on paratransit services to will be required to accommodate Kent, as well as areas around supplement the fixed-route bus a higher number of drivers with Ashland have census tracts with system. According to American visual or other physical chal- concentrated elderly populations. Community Survey 5-year esti- lenges due to aging. Similarly, pockets in the west end mates, in 2013, around ten percent Demographics Regional of the City and western Henrico of the region’s population had a disability. Disability status by 179 map 1.7. Concentration of Elderly Population in the Richmond Region in 2013 Regional Demographics Regional
180 map 1.8. Concentration of Individuals with Disabilities in the Richmond Region in 2013 jurisdiction in the region for the Population with a Percent With a Jurisdiction Total Population year 2013 is shown in Ffig. 1.13. Disability Disability Chesterfield and Charles City counties have the largest popula- Charles City 7,202 914 12.7% tion with a disability (12.7% and Chesterfield 317,538 26,554 8.4% 13.8% of the total jurisdictions’ Goochland 19,352 1,575 8.1% population, respectively). Hanover 99,307 8,914 9.0% Henrico 308,636 25,417 8.2% The concentration of populations New Kent 18,208 1,564 8.6% with a disability in the Richmond Powhatan 24,899 2,059 8.3% region in the year 2010 is shown Richmond 205,220 28,259 13.8% in Mmap 1.8 The average Region Total 1,000,362 95,256 9.5% percentage of residents with a Source: 2009-2013 ACS 3-Year Estimates Table B18101 disability for all tracts in the fig. 1.12. DisabilityStatus in 2013 region is 11.4 percent. A census tract with a concentrated popu- lation is defined as having more Total % LEP Jurisdiction LEP Population than 11.4 percent of its residents Population Population who are affected by a disability. Charles City 6,918 10 0.14% The map illustrates that the City Chesterfield 300,744 6,747 2.24% of Richmond has the greatest Goochland 20,621 87 0.42% number of tracts with extreme Hanover 95,188 604 0.63% concentrations of individuals Henrico 291,042 8,150 2.80% with a disability. Henrico and New Kent 17,831 129 0.72% Charles City counties have large Powhatan 26,918 110 0.41% areas of moderate concentrations Richmond 194,637 5,358 2.75% of individuals with a disability. Region Total 953,899 21,195 2.22% Limited English Source: 2009-2013 ACS 5-Year Estimates Table B16005 fig. 1.13. LEP Population in the Richmond Region, 2013 Proficiency Population
Limited English Proficiency Fig. 1.13 shows the LEP popu- area (please clarify this) falling (LEP) Population are persons lation for each jurisdiction in above that threshold. The for whom English is not their the Richmond region. Slightly majority of the LEP population primary language and who have over two percent of the region’s is located in South Richmond a limited ability to speak, under- population reports that they do and adjoining Chesterfield stand, read or write English. It not speak English well or do not County along the Route 1, Route includes people who reported speak English at all. 60 and Route 360 corridors. to the US Census that they do Some tracts with concentrations not speak English well or do not The distribution of areas of LEP of LEP populations are located speak English at all. The transit population concentration in in western Henrico. planning process is modified the Richmond region is shown using dual-language survey in Mmap 1.9. The average materials and public engagement
percentage of LEP residents Demographics Regional efforts where a large LEP popu- for all tracts in the region is 2.7 lation must be accommodated. percent, with any concentration 181 map 1.9. Limited English Proficiency Population in the Richmond Region, 2013 Regional Demographics Regional
182 Regional Demographics Regional
183 184 Land Use & Environmental Mitigation
The Clean Air Act Amendments The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) were signed into law on November 15, 1990. The 1990 CAAA provided for a comprehensive revision of the 1977 CAAA. It imposed major challenges for the metropolitan transportation planning and programming process in the nation’s designated non-attainment and maintenance areas. The Clean Air Act’s primary goals are the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in areas cleaner than the NAAQS. The NAAQS establish the maximum pollutant concentrations that are allowed in the outside ambient air.
EPA requires that each state submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP), including any laws and regulations necessary to enforce the plan that outlines how pollutant concentrations will be reduced to levels at or below the standards. This achievement is referred to as “attainment.” Once pollution levels fall below the standards, the state must also show how it plans to keep these levels at the reduced amounts, referred to as “maintenance.” The CAAA requires transportation plans and programs to conform to the SIP for each applicable air quality standard. The air quality plans quantify pollution reduction needs and commit to reduction strategies through the SIP, transportation control measures (TCMs), and conformity provisions for transportation planning.
The EPA has defined NAAQS for six criteria pollutants, including ground level ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Any area that fails to meet these standards by a certain deadline can be reclassified to a higher-level designation with additional and more stringent compliance requirements.
185 NAAQS History: • In March 2008, EPA advised EPA Region III responded that it would proceed to lower on December 9, 2011 that • On November 6, 1991, the the 8-hour ozone standard to Richmond Region was 0.075 parts per million (it was it intended to designate the classified by EPA as a moderate previously set at 0.08 ppm). Richmond area as “unclassifiable/ ozone non-attainment area for As a result of this change and attainment” and EPA published based on the three previous the one-hour ozone standard final designations in the summer (56 FR 56694). years of data exceeding these new standards, the Richmond of 2012. The current design value • On November 17, 1997, EPA and Tri-Cities Maintenance for the three-year period from approved Virginia’s request for Area jurisdictions (i.e., 2013-2015 in the Richmond Richmond, Henrico, Hanover, redesignation of the Richmond area, according to DEQ, is 0.063, moderate 1-hour ozone Charles City, Petersburg, nonattainment area from Colonial Heights, Hopewell, which is below the 0.07 standard nonattainment to attainment and Prince George) would be established by EPA in October and approved the area’s redesignated to nonattainment 2015. maintenance plan. status. These designations were expected to occur in Richmond Regional • As a result of the EPA March 2010. However, on promulgating a new 8-hour January 6, 2010, EPA proposed Existing and Future Land ozone standard, the EPA to strengthen the national Use Maps redesignated the Richmond ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level Region as a moderate ozone Each locality in the Richmond nonattainment area, effective ozone, the main compound of June 15, 2004 smog. EPA proposed that the region has an adopted 8-hour primary ozone standard Comprehensive Plan that • In October 2006, Virginia be changed to a level within the range of 0.060 to 0.070 provides policy guidance on Department of Environmental existing and future land uses Quality (VDEQ) submitted a ppm (the current primary redesignation request to EPA 8-hour average ozone standard across the jurisdiction. Each based on various measures is 0.075 ppm). Following an of these Comprehensive Plans, to improve air quality and initial delay in setting the final standard, EPA set and and accompanying land use plan an improvement in 8-hour maps, is maintained as an isolated ozone monitoring data. EPA announced finalization of the approved the redesignation standard by July 31, 2011. document, with no relationship request, and the Richmond to the adopted documents or • On September 2, 2011, area was redesignated into maps in surrounding localities. attainment with the 8-hour President Obama announced ozone standard, effective June that the new proposed standards were withdrawn and The Richmond Regional 18, 2007 (72 FR 30485). EPA Existing Land Use Map (Mmap also approved the associated EPA would now move forward maintenance plan, including with the implementation of 1.10) depicts existing land use in new motor vehicle emission the 2008 standard of 0.075 the region in 2013. The dataset budgets for transportation ppm (which had been on hold since the announcement of is the second iteration, updated conformity since these from the 2009 dataset completed requirements must continue the standard reconsideration under the maintenance in 2009). In addition, the in 2012. The initial dataset was designation. Richmond area experienced created using an amalgamation three years (2009-2011) of relatively good air quality of locality GIS data and aerial readings and DEQ submitted a photography. This iteration was revised area recommendation updated using only aerial photog- request to EPA on raphy, to find changes in land use November 21, 2011 asking
Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land for the Richmond area to be over time. In it, each parcel in designated as an attainment the region has been assigned one 186 area. of 19 land uses, from Agricultural map 1.10. RICHMOND REGIONAL EXISTING LAND USE Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land map 1.11. RICHMOND REGIONAL FUTURE LAND USE 187 to Commercial to Residential, extension of the Powhite Parkway development. The Chesapeake separated by density. in Chesterfield County from its 2000 Agreement (C2K) has current terminus to Route 360 incorporated a dedication to Similarly, for a future regional will help mitigate the additional lessen the rate of consumption of overview of planned land uses in traffic expected with growth in natural lands by the three states the localities in the Richmond this area. involved – Virginia, Maryland, region, RRPDC staff used local and Pennsylvania. comprehensive plans and future Another observation from this land use maps to create a map analysis is the difference in future Another topic of discussion depicting future land use across development styles between the regarding new development is the the region. To accomplish this, urban and rural jurisdictions. jobs-housing balance. The idea RRPDC staff consulted with The traditional development that of people living closer to where locality staff to aggregate/group has occurred in the urban juris- they work is something that is local future land use designations dictions follows a linear pattern not new to anyone, but it is an into broad regional categories. along major arterials (note: Broad important detail in planning for For residential land use catego- Street, Midlothian Turnpike, and new development. If developers, ries, a notation was maintained Hull Street). Rural counties businesses, and local government in the dataset that indicates the are aware that development can take into account the housing planned density thresholds or make or break the quality of life needs of commercial and indus- averages, for example, 4 dwelling and rural atmosphere of their trial businesses, long commutes units per acre. It is this density jurisdictions, and have developed and traffic congestion might be notation that enables the resi- plans that reflect that concern. cut in the future. dential density grading depicted in the map. In this analysis, The designation of development There are many aspects of growth comprehensive land use plans centers, or specific areas where that can be addressed by looking from each jurisdiction in the development will be directed, at the impacts of land use and Richmond region were used is apparent in the future land transportation on our region. to map out the future land use use plans of each of the four This analysis only scratches snapshot for the entire region. It rural jurisdictions in the region. the surface of the potential should be noted that these plans Development in this pattern will for improvement that may be have different horizon years and not only push to conserve the looked at in the near future. are not coordinated between rural landscape, but also deter We can continue to study these jurisdictions at this time (Mmap sprawling growth and reduce trends and incorporate land use/ 1.11). traffic congestion caused by transportation factors into many frequent stops and turns. One different planning exercises. Common trends are evident of the most discussed topics of when studying the resulting land new development is the issue Some types of new land use use and transportation struc- of density. It is proven in many patterns that may need further ture of the Richmond region. cities that higher population consideration in the 20 year Development of the region as densities tend to foster use of horizon of this plan are: a whole is spreading southwest mass transit and pedestrian at a more rapid pace than any modes of transportation. Higher other area in the region. Many densities in turn lessen the rate new transportation facilities of land consumption by concen- Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land are planned in the western area trating new development in more of the region. For example, the urban areas, most likely as infill 188 • Neo-traditional development – • Transit Oriented Development • Other Techniques – Other These developments aspire to These developments have residential techniques that return suburban communities a well-defined central place could be explored by the to the “traditional” form of around a transit stop. The RRTPO or local governments neighborhood. Developments central place provides much include rural design districts, such as Kentlands in of the retail needs of the cluster development where Maryland have successfully average commuter, other retail total density remains the same used this form of land use establishments, and some as conventional suburban to achieve a community office space. High-density design but lots are smaller whose resale and property housing is located within a so the remaining land is left values are slightly higher quarter-mile of the stop to as open space, and mixed than neighboring suburban encourage necessary densities residential development developments. Neo-traditional to make them viable. Lower densities with an affordable developments typically density housing is further out. housing component. have a well-defined center Transit oriented design places Commercial applications that includes commercial, a high priority on walkability, include commercial centers office, and residential uses so urban design, sidewalks, as opposed to strip malls, at high densities. Some pedestrian paths, and human shopping villages that create neighborhoods include scale are important attributes several smaller buildings multiple residential types from of such developments. instead of one strip mall, apartments and condominiums and commercial/office to single family homes on mixtures. Localities can also smaller lots with maximum place a premium on growth rather than minimum setbacks, management by focusing and have front porches and incentives on revitalization and sidewalks with minimal space infill development and creating for driveways and back yards. disincentives for growth where Although residential lot yield provisions of public services and density are similar to would be more costly. neighboring communities, the smaller lots allow for more open space and civic areas. Combined with Grid Street patterns, walking and biking can be an effective and efficient alternative to the automobile in these
communities. POTENTIAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES Resource Strategy Neighborhoods and communities, • Minimize noise impact with sound barriers homes and businesses • Prevent the spread of hazardous materials with soil testing and treatment • Realign roadway corridors to avoid aquatic resources. • Replace or restore wetlands • Submerge or utilize bottomless culverts. • Bridge sensitive areas instead of laying pavement directly onto the ground. • Improve storm water management. Wetlands and Water Resources • Reduce fill footprints using steeper slopes. • Reduce roadway medians. • Make perpendicular crossings of streams and riparian buffers rather than lateral encroachments. • Restore streams and/or stream buffers. • Minimize removal and/or selective cutting in forested areas except for what is needed to establish roadways and associated rights-of-way. • Preserve and/or re-establish vegetation whenever possible within other open Forested and other natural areas areas not slated for road construction. • Use selective cutting and clearing • Replace or restore forested areas, preferably at a 2 to 1 ratio for replacement. • Use selective cutting and clearing • Replace or restore forested areas, preferably at a 2 to 1 ratio for replacement. Endangered and threatened species • Bridge sensitive areas instead of laying pavement directly onto the ground • Use guidance in the “Virginia Wildlife Action Plan” to protect species and habitat. Mitigation & Environmental Use Land • Control loose exposed soils with watering or canvas sheets Air quality • Minimize idling of heavy construction vehicles fig. 1.1. POTENTIAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES 189 Discussion of Potential (Placeholder for after public • Cultural resources (i.e., historic properties or archaeological Environmental comment period) sites) Mitigation Activities plan2040 and Project Level Background Environmental Analysis • Parks and recreation areas • Wetlands and water resources This discussion of “potential plan2040 includes projects expected to be built by 2040; environmental mitigation activ- • Forested and other natural ities” is being included in the however, detailed environmental areas plan2040 update in response to analysis conducted through • Agricultural areas the requirements of the FAST the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not Act federal legislation carrying • Endangered and threatened forward MAP-21 federal apply to the MTP. With excep- species legislation Sec 450.322 (f ) (7) tions for regional ambient air • Air quality Development and Content of quality, offsetting environmental the Metropolitan Transportation impacts during the metropolitan Plan. transportation planning are not Environmental mitigation is the required. While detailed environ- process of addressing damage to “A discussion of potential envi- mental analysis is not required, the environment caused by trans- ronmental mitigation activities it is important to consult with portation or other public works and potential areas to carry environmental resource agencies projects. Commonly, actions out these activities, including during the development of the taken to avoid or minimize activities that may have the metropolitan transportation plan. environmental damage are also greatest potential to restore and considered mitigation as well. maintain the environmental Detailed environmental analysis functions affected by the metro- of individual transportation Potential environmental mitiga- politan transportation plan. The projects occurs later in the tion activities may include discussion shall be developed in project development process as • Avoiding impacts altogether consultation with Federal, State, the improvement approaches the preliminary engineering stage. At • Minimizing a proposed activity/ and Tribal land management, project size or its involvement wildlife, and regulatory agencies.” this stage, project features may be narrowed and refined, and the • Rectifying impacts (restoring The federal legislation requires environmental impacts and envi- temporary impacts) that the MPO (RRTPO) ronmental mitigation strategies • Precautionary and/or consult with natural resource can be appropriately ascertained. abatement measures to reduce and environmental agencies on Impact Types and Mitigation construction impacts the metropolitan transportation Strategies plan. During the public review • Employing special features Some common environmental or operational management period, RRTPO staff contacted measures to reduce a selected list of federal, state impact types that are considered and local environmental/natural in an environmental analysis for • impacts resource agencies to request their a specific project include: • Compensating for review and comment on the draft environmental impacts by plan2040 update. The RRTPO • Neighborhoods and providing suitable replacement received a few comments communities, homes, and or substitute environmental Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land which have been addressed in businesses resources of equivalent or greater value, on or off-site the Appendix section of this 190 document. Potential Mitigation Activities Maps of Common along the Pamunkey River, in Identified in Environmental Environmental Features Charles City County along Studies in the Richmond Region the Chickahominy River, areas A review of environmental studies Superfund Sites adjacent to the James River along conducted in association with the eastern Henrico/Chesterfield The CERCLA (Comprehensive proposed transportation projects border, areas adjacent to the Environmental Response, showed a wide range of poten- James River in Goochland Compensation, and Liability Act) tial environmental mitigation County, along the James River in federal law of 1980 authorized activities. A summary of these Richmond City, and Pocahontas the United States Environmental potential mitigation activities Park in Chesterfield. Protection Agency (EPA) to is provided here. Many studies Wetlands create a list of polluted locations include both planned strategies requiring a long-term response Wetlands are land areas that are to prevent environmental impact to clean up hazardous material saturated with water and take on (minimization) and strategies to contaminations. These locations characteristics that distinguish atone for it (mitigation). Some of are known as Superfund sites, them as a distinct ecosystem: these potential mitigation strat- and are placed on the National they provide habitat for fish, egies are outlined in the figure Priorities List (NPL). The NPL wildlife and a variety of plants. below. guides the EPA in “determining Wetlands are important land- Role of the RRTPO in Potential scape features because they hold Environmental Discussions which sites warrant further investigation” for environmental and slowly release flood water Large transportation projects remediation. There are currently and snow melt, recharge ground- are underway in the Richmond four Superfund sites on the water, act as filters to cleanse region that has regional signif- National Priorities List in the water of impurities and recycle icance as well as potential Richmond region. nutrients. To have a consistent regional environmental impacts. Threatened & Endangered regional wetland layer, data from Maps of the most common Species the US Fish & Wildlife Service’s environmental features have National Wetland Inventory Plant and animal species judged been developed by the RRTPO (NWI) has been used in the as threatened or endangered showing the location of park- map. Wetlands occur throughout are listed by state, federal, and lands and conservation lands, the Richmond region as evident international agencies as well as wetlands, threatened and endan- from the map. by some private organizations. gered species, superfund sites and Parklands & Conservation The Virginia Department of scenic rivers. The responsibility Lands Conservation and Recreation for project planning and funding (VDCR) works in conjunc- These lands have been identified for environmental mitigation, tion with US Fish & Wildlife using a variety of local, regional, however, comes from the state Service’s Endangered Species state, and federal sources, and local levels. The RRTPO Program to identify threatened including information available is evaluating its role in mitiga- and endangered species. The from the Virginia Department tion activities and, based on this main aim is to protect endan- of Conservation and Recreation evaluation, may expand its efforts gered and threatened species, and conservation lands database, the to facilitate information sharing then encourage their recovery. In Virginia Department of Game about potential mitigation loca- the Richmond region, the major and Inland Fisheries Wildlife tions, techniques, best practices, Mitigation & Environmental Use Land conservation sites are located Management Areas, Virginia etc. in northern New Kent County Department of Forestry State 191 Forests Natural Areas, National statewide significance for future Park Service Lands, as well as generations. The Virginia conservation easements held Department of Conservation and by the Nature Conservancy, the Recreation (VDCR) identifies Virginia Outdoors Foundation portions of the James, Pamunkey, and other organizations and Chickahominy, Appomattox and privately owned conservation South Anna Rivers as Scenic lands. All of these lands are Rivers. unlikely to undergo future development or conversion to residential or economic develop- ment uses. Limitations such as public ownership, conservation easements, and programmatic uses result in this diminished land development likelihood. Some of these sites, such as local and state parks, act as transporta- tion attractors given their uses for recreation and social gathering events. However, other sites such as conservation easements and wildlife management areas are typically not large drivers of traffic, and can act as obstacles to future roadway and transpor- tation route development. The Parklands and Conservation lands are distributed throughout the region with Pocahontas State Park in Chesterfield County, Powhatan Wildlife Management Area in Powhatan County and Chickahominy Wildlife Management Area in Charles City County being some of the larger ones in the region. Scenic Rivers
Virginia’s Scenic Rivers Program’s intent is to identify, designate and help protect rivers and streams that possess outstanding Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land scenic, recreational, historic and natural characteristics of 192 Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land
193 map 1.12. SUPERFUND SITES IN THE RICHMOND REGION Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land
194 fig. 1.2. THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE RICHMOND REGION Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land
195 fig. 1.3. WETLANDS IN THE RICHMOND REGION Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land
196 fig. 1.4. PARKLANDS AND CONSERVATION LANDS IN THE RICHMOND REGION Land Use & Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Use Land
197 fig. 1.5. SCENIC RIVERS IN THE RICHMOND REGION 198 Regional Road Network
The dominant mode of transportation in the Richmond region is the highway system which is available for use by many transportation modes. For example, roads provide transportation access for buses, carpools, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and freight movement.
Although there may be a need to reduce vehicle emissions to improve air quality, roadways are the primary component in the plan2040 Fiscally Constrained Plan. Included in plan2040 are a variety of improvements planned for the roadways in the Richmond region. Some of these improvements are meant to reduce vehicle-miles of travel and improve traffic operations, which would then improve air quality and reduce energy consumption.
This section will review some of the essential elements of the highway system, and together with the Congestion Management section, provide an overview of the trends affecting the region’s roadway system.
fig. 3.1. I-95 AT HERMITAGE. RRPDC
199 Federal Roadway Functional Classification The Concept of Functional Classification
Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the recognition that individual roads and streets do not serve travel independently in any major way. Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads. It becomes necessary then to determine how this travel can be channelized within the network in a logical and efficient manner. Functional classification defines the nature of this channeliza- tion process by defining the part that any particular road or street fig. 3.2. FUNCTIONALLY CLASSIFIED RURAL HIGHWAY NETWORK should play in serving the flow of trips through a highway network. as well. A similar hierarchy of a fixed requirement, necessary at systems can be defined; however, both ends of any trip. Mobility An illustration of a functionally because of the high intensity of along the path of such trips can classified rural network is shown land use and travel throughout be provided at varying levels, in Ffig. 3.2. Since the cities and an urban area, specific travel usually referred to as “level of larger towns generate and attract generation centers are more diffi- service.” It can incorporate a a large proportion of the relatively cult to identify. In urban areas wide range of elements (e.g., longer trips, the arterial highways additional considerations, such as riding comfort and freedom from generally provide direct service spacing, become more important speed changes) but the most for such travel. The intermediate in defining a logical and efficient basic is operating speed or trip functional category, the collec- network. A schematic illustra- travel time. tors, serve small towns directly, tion of a functionally classified connect them to the arterial urban street network is shown in It was pointed out in the discus- network, and collect traffic from Ffig. 3.3. sion of Ffig. 3.3 that the concept the bottom-level system of local of traffic channelization leads roads, which serves individual Allied to the idea of traffic logically not only to a functional farms and other rural land uses. channelization is the dual role hierarchy of systems, but also to Regional Road Network Road Regional the highway network plays in a parallel hierarchy of relative Although the above example has providing (1) access to property, travel distances served by those a rural setting, the same basic 200 and (2) travel mobility. Access is systems. This hierarchy of travel concepts apply in urban areas Functional classification can be applied in planning highway system development, determining the jurisdictional responsibility for particular systems, and in fiscal planning. Area Definitions
Urban and rural areas have funda- mentally different characteristics as to density and types of land use, density of street and highway networks, nature of travel patterns, and the way in which all these elements are related in the definitions of highway function. Consequently, there is a separate classification of urban and rural functional systems. Experience has shown that extensions of rural arterial and collector routes provide an adequate arterial street network in places of less than 5,000 persons. Hence urban classi- fications are considered in the context of places of 5,000 persons or more. fig. 3.3. URBAN STREET NETWORK Urban areas are defined in distances can be related logically Federal-aid highway law (Section to a desirable functional special- 101 of Title 23, U.S. Code) as ization in meeting access and follows: mobility requirements. Local facilities emphasize the land The term ‘urban area’ means an access function. Arterials empha- urbanized area or, in the case of size a high level of mobility for an urbanized area encompassing through movement. Collectors more than one State, that part offer a compromise between of the urbanized area in each both functions. This is illustrated such State, or an urban place conceptually in Ffig. 3.4. as designated by the Bureau of the Census having a population
of five thousand or more and Network Road Regional not within any urbanized area, fig. 3.4. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION within boundaries to be fixed RELATIONSHIP TO MOBILITY AND ACCESS 201 by responsible State and local areas, the routes on the principal to bypass the central city. In officials in cooperation with each arterial system are sub-classified addition, significant intra-area other, subject to approval by the as Interstate, other freeways and travel, such as between central Secretary. Such boundaries shall, expressways, and other principal business districts and outlying as a minimum, encompass the arterials. residential areas, between major entire urban place designated by inner city communities, or Urban principal arterial system: the Bureau of the Census. between major suburban centers In every urban environment should be served by this system. The remainder of this discussion there exists a system of streets Frequently the principal arterial of functional classification will and highways which can be iden- system will carry important focus on urbanized areas as this tified as unusually significant to intraurban as well as intercity applies to the Richmond urban- the area in which it lies in terms bus routes. Finally, this system in ized area. of the nature and composition small urban and urbanized areas of travel it serves. In smaller Functional System should provide continuity for all urban areas (under 50,000 rural arterials which intercept Characteristics population) these facilities may the urban boundary. Functional Systems in be very limited in number and Urbanized Areas extent, and their importance Because of the nature of the may be primarily derived from travel served by the principal The four functional systems for the service provided to travel arterial system, almost all fully urbanized areas are urban prin- passing through the area. In and partially controlled access cipal arterials, minor arterial larger urban areas their impor- facilities will be part of this func- streets, collector streets, and local tance also derives from service to tional system. This system is not, streets. The differences in the rural oriented traffic, but equally however, restricted to controlled nature and intensity of develop- or even more important, from access routes. To preserve the ment between rural and urban service for major movements identification of controlled access areas cause these systems to have within these urbanized areas. facilities, the principal arterial characteristics that are somewhat system is stratified as follows: different from the correspond- This system of streets and ingly named rural systems. highways is the urban principal 1.Interstate arterial system and should serve The Hierarchy of Urbanized the major centers of activity of 2.Other freeways and expressways Area Functional System: a metropolitan area, the highest • Principal arterials 3.Other principal arterials (with traffic volume corridors, and the no control of access) • Minor arterial streets longest trip desires; and should carry a high proportion of the The spacing of urban principal • Collector streets total urban area travel on a arterials will be closely related to the trip-end density charac- • Local streets minimum of mileage. The system should be integrated, both inter- teristics of particular portions of nally and between major rural the urban areas. While no firm Since there is a wide variation in connections. spacing rule can be established the characteristics and magnitude which will apply in all, or even of service provided by this basic The principal arterial system most circumstances, the spacing functional system, further strat- should carry the major portion of principal arterials (in larger Regional Road Network Road Regional ification of routes is prescribed of trips entering and leaving the urban areas) may vary from to ensure greater adaptability for urban area, as well as the majority less than one mile in the highly 202 subsequent use. In urbanized of through movements desiring developed central business areas to five miles or more in the The spacing of minor arterial Urban local street system: The sparsely developed urban fringes. streets may vary from one-eighth local street system comprises all to one-half mile in the central facilities not on one of the higher For principal arterials, the business district to two to three systems. It serves primarily to concept of service to abutting miles in the suburban fringes, provide direct access to abutting land should be subordinate to but should normally be not more land and access to the higher order the provision of travel service than one mile in fully developed systems. It offers the lowest level to major traffic movements. It areas. of mobility and usually contains should be noted that only facil- no bus routes. Service for through ities within the “other principal Urban collector street system: traffic movement usually is delib- arterial” system are capable of The collector street system erately discouraged. To assist in providing any direct access to provides both land access service enhancing pedestrian safety and adjacent land, and such service and traffic circulation within reduce vehicular accidents, these should be purely incidental to the residential neighborhoods, and streets may be appropriate for primary functional responsibility commercial and industrial areas. implementing “traffic calming” of this system. Major and minor collectors are measures such as narrow lane also under the urban collector widths, special signage, speed Urban minor arterial street street system. It differs from the system: The minor arterial street humps, four-way stops and other arterial system in that facilities treatments. system should interconnect with on the collector system may and augment the urban principal penetrate residential neighbor- Extent of Mileage and Travel arterial system and provide service hoods, distributing trips from the on Urban Systems: Guideline to trips of moderate length at a arterials through the area to the ranges of travel volume (VMT) somewhat lower level of travel ultimate destination. Conversely, and mileage of each of the four mobility than principal arterials. the collector street also collects functional systems for urban- This system also distributes travel traffic from local streets in ized areas can be found in fig. to geographic areas smaller than residential neighborhoods and 3.5. Systems developed for each those identified with the higher channels it into the arterial area using the criteria herein will system. system. In the central business usually fall within the percentage The minor arterial street system district, and in other areas of ranges shown. like development and traffic includes all arterials not classified The adopted functional classifi- as a principal and contains facil- density, the collector system may include the street grid which cation system for the Richmond ities that place more emphasis area is shown on the Map 3.1 on land access than the higher forms a logical entity for traffic circulation. and available in further detail on system, and offer a lower level VDOT’s webpage. of traffic mobility. Such facil- ities may carry local bus routes and provide intra-community GUIDELINES ON EXTENT OF URBAN FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS continuity, but ideally should Range System VMT not penetrate identifiable neigh- Miles (percent) borhoods. This system should Principal arterial system 40 – 65 5 – 10 include urban connections to Principal arterial plus minor arterial street systems 65 – 80 15 – 25 rural collector roads where such Collector street system 5 – 10 5 – 10 Local street system 10 - 30 65 - 80 Regional Road Network Road Regional connections have not been clas- fig. 3.5. GUIDELINES ON EXTENT OF URBAN FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS sified as urban principal arterials. 203 Administrative • Other Principal Arterials: metropolitan planning organiza- These are highways in rural Functional Classification and urban areas which provide tions (MPOs). access between an arterial and Although the maps shown above a major port, airport, public A map of the NHS in Richmond, reflect the adopted Federal transportation facility, or other VA Urbanized Area, which Functional Classifications for intermodal transportation includes parts of RRTPO and facility. streets and highways in the Tri-Cities MPO as of November Richmond region, in many cases, • Strategic Highway Network 2015 is shown as Mmap 3.20. individual jurisdictions in the (STRAHNET): This is a network area may adopt their own vari- of highways which are Regional Road Network important to the United States’ Operations ation of a roadway functional strategic defense policy and classification system for planning which provide defense access, purposes. These local systems continuity and emergency An analysis of the trends in are referred to as “administrative” capabilities for defense roadway utilization, such as purposes. functional classification systems vehicle miles of travel, safety and congestion, is included to distinguish them from the • Major Strategic Highway federal classifications. For Network Connectors: These in Congestion Management example, at least one Richmond are highways which provide section. Presented here is a access between major military area jurisdiction classifies review of several critical elements installations and highways that reflect the current state of collector roads into two types: which are part of the Strategic major and minor collectors. This Highway Network. the system in the Richmond refinement assists in planning metropolitan area. This includes • Intermodal Connectors: These for appropriate roadway connec- indexes maintained by VDOT highways provide access that track maintenance of the tivity, posted speed limits and between major intermodal other design considerations. facilities and the other four roadway surface conditions and Therefore, locally adopted trans- subsystems making up the bridge conditions. National Highway System. Roadway Surface Conditions portation plans may include modifications or deviations from The table in Ffig. 3.6 from the official federal classifications The NHS includes the Interstate VDOT’s “State of the Pavement of Richmond area roads and Highway System as well as other 2015” report, shows that the highways. roads important to the nation’s Richmond Construction District economy, defense, and mobility. includes more lane mileage to National Highway The NHS was developed by the be maintained than any other System Department of Transportation district in Virginia. (DOT) in cooperation with The National Highway System the states, local officials, and In general, wear and tear on (NHS) consists of roadways roadway surfaces is due to two
important to the nation’s LANE MILEAGE BY DISTRICT AND SYSTEM economy, defense, and mobility. District Interstate Primary Secondary Frontage Total Bristol 528 2,809 12,306 112 15,755 The NHS includes the following Salem 493 2,668 14,731 105 17,967 subsystems of roadways (note Lynchburg 0 2,805 12,379 43 15,245 Richmond 1,323 3,439 13,932 75 18,769 that a specific highway route may Hampton Roads 874 1,770 7,112 92 9,858 be on more than one subsystem): Fredericksburg 281 2,190 9,279 24 11,774 • Interstate: The Eisenhower Culpeper 279 1,852 8,282 52 10,465
Regional Road Network Road Regional Staunton 940 2,482 10,473 75 13,970 Interstate System of highways Nova 725 1,732 10,878 78 13,413 retains its separate identity Statewide 5,443 21,747 99,400 656 127,246 204 within the NHS. fig. 3.6. LANE MILEAGE BY DISTRICT AND SYSTEM Regional Road Network Road Regional map 3.13. VDOT 2014 APPROVED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICA- 205 map 3.14. VDOT 2014 APPROVED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION - A1 Regional Road Network Road Regional
206 map 3.15. VDOT 2014 APPROVED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION - A2 Regional Road Network Road Regional
207 map 3.16. VDOT 2014 APPROVED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION - A3 Regional Road Network Road Regional
208 map 3.17. VDOT 2014 APPROVED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION - B1 Regional Road Network Road Regional
209 map 3.18. VDOT 2014 APPROVED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION - B2 Regional Road Network Road Regional
210 map 3.19. VDOT 2014 APPROVED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION - B3 Regional Road Network Road Regional
211 Regional Road Network Road Regional
212 map 3.20. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA principal factors: 1) vehicle load PAVEMENT CONDITION FOR 2015 INTERSTATE SYSTEM related damages (e.g., fatigue Lane Miles Deficient Lane County Name % Deficient Rated Miles cracking, patching, rutting, Chesterfield 136.8 7.23 5.29% etc.); and 2) non-load-related Goochland 111.66 9.62 8.62% Hanover 168.22 14.25 8.47% comprised of distresses (e.g., Henrico 394.17 80.27 20.37% transverse and longitudinal New Kent 80.43 4.37 5.43% Source: VDOT State of the Pavement 2015. October 2015 cracking, longitudinal joint sepa- fig. 3.7. PAVEMENT CONDITION FOR 2015 INTERSTATE SYSTEM ration, bleeding, etc.) considered to be primarily non-load related, PAVEMENT RIDE QUALITY FOR 2015 INTERSTATE SYSTEM Lane Miles Deficient Lane i.e., caused by weathering of County Name % Deficient Rated Miles pavement surface or materials Chesterfield 134.18 6.7 4.99% and/or construction deficiency. Goochland 113.04 3.1 2.74% Hanover 168.19 9.04 5.37% Henrico 363.22 53.07 14.61% Pavement condition of counties New Kent 98.06 4.85 4.94% in the Richmond region for 2015 Source: VDOT State of the Pavement 2015. October 2015 Interstate System is illustrated in fig. 3.8. PAVEMENT RIDE QUALITY FOR 2015 INTERSTATE SYSTEM Ffig. 3.7. smooth flow of transportation in region. The City of Richmond “Pavement ride quality” of the Richmond region. and Henrico County own and The Richmond Regional counties in the Richmond region maintain almost 10 percent of all Bridge and Culvert Inventory for the 2015 Interstate System is bridges and culverts. Chesterfield and Structural Assessment illustrated in Ffig. 3.8. County and the Town of Ashland Report 2015 Update both maintain 1 culvert each. Local Tolling agency Richmond Bridge and Culvert This RRTPO produced Metropolitan Transportation Conditions document provides an inven- Authority (RMTA) owns and tory of all the structures in the maintains about 33 bridges and Bridges and culverts are an region, and identifies structures culverts (2.3% of all structures). important part of any regional with poor conditions (struc- A few bridges are owned and transportation system. Due to turally deficient, functionally maintained by the private sector. the presence of many rivers obsolete, weight posted, etc.). Transurban owns and main- including the James River, This document is based on the tains 34 bridges and culverts on Pamunkey River, Chickahominy snapshot of the data captured Route 895 (including ramps). River, Appomattox River and from VDOT’s online dashboard Private railroad agencies CSX South Anna River and numerous as of January 15, 2015. (The Corporation and Norfolk creeks and streams, there are Richmond Regional Bridge and Southern Railways own and many bridges (and culverts) in Culvert Inventory and Structural maintain 4 bridges in total (3 by the Richmond region. Similarly, Assessment document can be CSX and 1 by Norfolk Southern). due to the presence of an inte- assessed from the RRTPO’s grated network of highways website). The median year a struc- including Interstates 64, 95, 195 ture (bridge or culvert) was and 295, freeway Routes 76, 150, Bridges and culverts in the constructed (or underwent major 288 and 895 and many other Richmond region are owned and reconstruction) in the Richmond state and US highways there are maintained by VDOT, various region is 1985, making the many elevated (grade-separated) jurisdictions and other public and
median age of the structures in Network Road Regional interchanges. The condition of private agencies. VDOT owns the region 30 years as of January these structures is the key to the and maintains around 85 percent 2015. Out of 1,412 structures in of all bridges and culverts in the 213 the Richmond region, 64 struc- Sufficiency ratings were devel- • Total number of Deficient bridges: 295 tures (4.5%) built before 1950 oped by the Federal Highway have not undergone any major Administration to serve as a prior- • Median Age of Structures : 30 reconstruction work. The bulk itization tool to allocate funds. years of the bridges in the region were The rating varies from 0 percent • Number of Structures built from 1960 to 1990 (52%). (poor) to 100 percent (very good). eligible for Federal Bridge The formula considers structural Replacement Funds: 77 Structures are considered struc- adequacy, whether the structure turally deficient if they have been is functionally obsolete and level • Number of Structures eligible for Federal Bridges restricted to light vehicles, closed of service provided to the public. to traffic or require rehabilita- Rehabilitation Funds: 171 tion. Structurally deficient means Deficient bridges with sufficiency there are elements of the bridge ratings of less than 50 qualify for Toll Roads that need to be monitored and/or federal bridge replacement funds. repaired. The fact that a bridge is In the Richmond region, the There are several toll facilities in “structurally deficient” does not number of structures eligible for the Richmond area including: imply that it is likely to collapse federal bridge replacement funds The Downtown Expressway or that it is unsafe. In 2014, 109 has increased from 70 to 77 from and Powhite Parkway along structures were classified as struc- 2014 to 2015 (Map 3.4). with VDOT’s Powhite Parkway turally deficient and in 2015, 110 Extension (Route 76): structures (Map 3.3). Similarly deficient bridges with sufficiency ratings greater than These roads form a 16-mile A functionally obsolete structure 50 and less than or equal to 80 highway network that extends (bridge or culvert) is one which qualify for federal bridge reha- from Interstates 95 and 195 was built to standards that are bilitation funds. In 2015, in the in Richmond into central not used today. These structures Richmond region 171 structures Chesterfield County. Tolls are not automatically rated as have been identified as deficient range from 15 cents to $1.50, structurally deficient, nor are they structures with sufficiency rating depending on vehicle size and inherently unsafe. Functionally greater than 50 and less than 80. toll collection location. obsolete bridges do not have The Downtown Expressway adequate lane widths, shoulder The following summaries the and Powhite Parkway are widths, or vertical clearances to findings of 2015 update of the operated by the Richmond serve current traffic demand, or Richmond Regional Bridge and Metropolitan Transportation those that may be occasionally Culvert Inventory and Structural Authority (RMTA). flooded. In 2014, 183 structures Report: • Total number Structures in the For general information about the were classified as function- Richmond Region : 1,412 RMA’s Downtown Expressway ally obsolete and in 2015, 185 or Powhite Parkway toll facilities, • Total number of Bridges : 815 structures. call 804-523-3300. • Total number of Culverts: 597 According to the Federal For general information about Highway Administration • Total number of Structurally VDOT’s Powhite Parkway (FHWA) a structure is deemed Deficient Bridges: 110 Extension toll facilities, call “deficient” if the structure is rated 804-378-3403. either ‘structurally deficient’ or • Total Number of Functionally Obsolete bridges: 185 The Boulevard Bridge Regional Road Network Road Regional ‘functionally obsolete’. The bridge is owned by RMTA. 214 It spans the James River and Regional Road Network Road Regional
215 map 3.21. STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES AND CULVERTS IN THE RICHMOND REGION Regional Road Network Road Regional
216 map 3.22. STRUCTURES ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FUNDS IN THE RICHMOND REGION connects the Westover Hills community to Maymont Park in the city on Route 161. Many Richmonders still call the Boulevard Bridge “The Nickel Bridge” because of its initial five- cent toll. Tolls are 35 cents for two-axle vehicles and 50 cents for three- axles. Vehicles with more than three axles aren’t permitted. The Pocahontas Parkway
The parkway is a direct drive connecting Chesterfield County (Chippenham Parkway - Route 150) to eastern Henrico County (Interstate 295) and the Richmond International Airport. The Richmond Airport Connector Road, a direct link between Pocahontas 895 and the airport, opened in January 2011. The toll is $2.75 ($3 during the morning and afternoon commutes). E-ZPass riders can use the high-speed open lanes, allowing them to travel through the toll facility at highway speeds. For more information, call 804-822-3420 or visit the following website: http://www. pocahontas895.com/using_ pocahontas_895/toll_prices.html Regional Road Network Road Regional
217 218 Regional Transit
Greater RVA Transit Vision Plan The expansion of the Pulse, the bus rapid transit service along the Broad Street corridor from Willow Lawn in Henrico County to Rocketts Land in the City of Richmond, countered with reductions in funding to existing transit services has generated a focus on what the Richmond region needs in terms of regional transit.
DRPT, in cooperation with the RRTPO and GRTC, is currently developing the Greater RVA Transit Vision Plan, an effort to look at regional transit needs and the vision for transit in the greater Richmond area. This long-term vision document for transit is using current transit and demographic data, land use data and plans, transit and population forecasts, public opinion surveys, and stakeholder input to create a guide for transit development in the region through 2040. The Vision Statement reads:
“By 2040, transit will connect the Richmond region through an efficient, reliable, seamless and sustainably-funded system that benefits everyone by enabling economic growth, promoting livable and walkable transit-oriented development, expanding access to jobs and services, and strengthening multi-modal access within and beyond our region”
Initial work started with GRTC and the Southern Institute of Research to understand attitudes and opinions about transit in the Richmond region. Two series of public meetings were held in November 2015 and June 2016 to kick off the visioning process for the plan and present alternatives to address transit needs and opportunities throughout the region. The Greater RVA Transit Vision Plan is scheduled for completion in early fall 2016 and the recommendations from the plan will be used to inform plan2045, the next RRTPO long-range transportation plan.
219 GRTC Pulse service still scheduled to begin in • Distinctive branding of vehicles and stations with unique October 2017. GRTC Transit is developing design elements plans for the institution of a 7.6 BRT has various elements that mile bus rapid transit (BRT) line distinguish itself from regular Benefits of the GRTC Pulse along Broad and Main Streets transit service currently provided include improving local and from Willow Lawn to Rockett’s by GRTC Transit. Theseregional mobility, promoting Landing. The project, titled the elements include: livable, transit-oriented devel- Pulse, is supported in part by a • Running ways: Dedicated opment and planning, providing federal transportation investment transit or mixed use lanes with transit signal priority or queue a cost-effective transit solution generating economic recovery jumps to reduce delays for for users. From an economic (TIGER) grant, and will operate transit vehicles perspective, the graphics below in dedicated and general traffic identify savings in time, trans- lanes. Partners include the U.S. • Faster service: Higher station spacing results in consolidated portation costs, and increases in Department of Transportation boarding and alighting and job creation for the Richmond (USDOT), Virginia DRPT, reductions in delays area due to the project. VDOT, City of Richmond, and Henrico County. • Safe and accessible stations: Richmond Transit Sheltered stations with raised Network Plan Among the features of the Pulse platforms for level boarding are low floor buses, off-board • Environmentally friendly The Richmond Transit Network ticketing, travel times that are vehicles Plan is a yearlong planning study almost 50% shorter than local to analyze the current GRTC buses, and unique, high-quality • Off-board fare collection system Transit System bus network stations. Detailed preliminary in the City and reconsider the engineering began in May 2015, • Frequent service with longer design of the bus routes in the as VDOT continues the Design- hours of operation context of a changing city and Build Process for the final design • Intelligent Transportation the new GRTC Pulse BRT. and scope validation for the Systems (ITS): Real-time The plan will consider how Regional Transit Regional project. Final design should be passenger information, transit to connect local routes to the completed in August 2016 with signal priority, closed circuit TV, BRT to ensure Richmond has a 220 emergency phones connected transit network. The corridors with higher frequencies “This includes transport needs of plan will seek public and stake- to capture riders. dependent population of senior holder input on key choices and citizens, persons with disabilities trade-offs to understand how the The high Coverage Concept and low-income workers….” City should best meet the needs would have funding allocation As a policy recommendation an dpreferences of the commu- priorities similar to the Familiar the Town’s Comprehensive nity to develop a blueprint for Concept, but buses would run plan notes that “the town shall the City’s transit system. about 20 percent faster by continue to attempt to obtain thinning out bus stops from sufficient funding through grants The Transit Network Plan will every block to every third block. and other sources to implement a serve as a blueprint to update the Service would be spread out to local transit circulator….” City’s transit system and redesign reach nearly all people. Charles City and New Kent the bus routes over the next Counties few years. With the upcoming The High Ridership Concept, opening of the GRTC Pulse in the third concept proposed in On-demand bus service for desti- 2017, the City has an opportunity the Transit Network Plan, would nations in Charles City and New to rethink its transit system with allocate 80 percent of transit Kent Counties is provided by the new BRT service on Broad funding to service on more Bay Transit and available to the and Main Streets. The planning frequent routes that will attract general public Monday to Friday process will engage the public in high ridership, and the remaining from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The a thorough conversation about 20 percent of funding would be New Kent Comprehensive Plan the benefits, goals and trade-offs spent on spreading service along notes the County desires to involved in deciding how to serve more miles of road with less establish express transit service the City, its residents, workers, frequency. Frequent bus service to/from downtown Richmond to students and visitors with transit. would be concentrated along a park and ride lot located in the The resulting plan will recom- major corridors, and buses would median of Rt. 60 a short distance mend changes to the bus routes run an estimated 20 percent from the US 60/VA 249/33 in the City starting in 2017. faster by thinning bus stop loca- intersection. tions. The Transit Network Plan Chesterfield County Part of the scope for the plan should be completed in early includes examining a spectrum 2017 after the completion of the At present the following GRTC of choices for the transit network stakeholder and public meetings routes extend into Chesterfield that can be implemented within through December 2016. with coordination from Access the existing budget for GRTC Chesterfield: Transit System. Under the Existing Transit in the • 64-Stony Point Express Familiar Concept, riders would Richmond Region • 82 Express have shorter walks to bus service Town of Ashland along more streets. Fifty percent • 66 Express of the transit funding would The Town of Ashland 2011-2012 • 62 Midlothian be spent on spreading service Comprehensive Plan notes that along more miles of road with a common theme of previous • 73 Ampthill less frequency to reach lower transportation studies conducted density areas. The remaining by the TPO, VDRPT, GRTC The following excerpt from fifty percent of funding would and the Town is the general lack the Chesterfield County Transit Regional be spent on service along major of public transportation options in outlying areas of the metropol- website addresses paratransit in itan region, including Ashland. Chesterfield: 221 “Access Chesterfield… provides programs targeted at commuters transportation policies and strat- transportation services for any to reduce single occupant vehicle egies for the City of Richmond Chesterfield County resident trips during peak travel times.” are designed to enable the City who is disabled, aged 60, or who Hanover County to “develop a regional multi- meets federal income guidelines.” modal transportation system Although public transportation Curb-to-curb service is provided consisting of commuter and light services in Hanover County and trips outside Chesterfield rail, local and express buses, rapid are limited to seasonal bus County must be for medical busways, ridesharing, improved service between Richmond and purposes with two exceptions: taxi service, and bikeways….” A King’s Dominion, the County’s second policy is to “encourage 1. For passengers living in comprehensive plan notes that regional participation in Southeastern Chesterfieldan objective of the plan is to achieving greater public transit County, limited transportation “Provide options for multimodal ridership.” is available along a designated transportation networks through route in Colonial Heights land development design that Among the public transportation reduces dependency on motor- issues noted in the plan are: 2. Disabled passengers who ized vehicles.” • Declining ridership attributed work in the designated service Henrico County to limited funding, movement area will continue to be trans- of large-scale retail ported to and from work GRTC operates nine local establishments away from Downtown, lack of service routes that provide access to Although Access Chesterfield to suburban employment the City of Richmond. Express and residential areas, fare cannot transport persons to buses serve four park and ride increases, and widespread Richmond for reasons other facilities and provide peak hour availability of parking than medical appointments, or service for commuters to and disabled passengers to work, • Key residential and commercial from downtown Richmond. sections of south, east connecting service is available to The County’s Comprehensive and north Richmond are GRTC Routes. plan notes that with regard to underserved by current routing patterns Goochland and Powhatan bus service, the following policy Counties should guide the provision of bus • A lack of rider amenities and There are no transit services avail- service in the county: “Continue facilities such as shelters and benches and route information able to the general public. The to monitor citizen satisfaction Goochland 2035 Comprehensive with GRTC service and ensure Plan notes that as a Policy a bus system that provides The Master Plan policies and Implementation Strategy, the adequate service to the residents strategies include identifying County should “Explore the of the county.” a dedicated and reliable source expansion of GRTC service to City of Richmond of funding and identifying and protecting potential future West Creek Business Park and Public transportation is also transit corridors/rights of way. Centerville Village.” Powhatan’s addressed in the Richmond This would facilitate the devel- Long-Range Comprehensive Master Plan. Among the goals of opment of light rail in the long Plan also has an objective to the plan is “The City of Richmond term, and bus service on dedi- “Identify opportunities for future will be served by a multi-modal cated lanes in the short term. regional transit service into regional transportation system the county. Work with regional Other recommendations include Regional Transit Regional connecting residents with areas implementing additional public partners to enhance Travel of employment, commerce Demand Management (TDM) transit service to Richmond 222 and education.” The long-term International Airport, enhancing bus stop signs and shelters, and providing express service oper- ating on the interstate highways System Map and expressways.
Broad 95 Parham Mayland Henrico Hospital Stillman Government 29x 19 19 Parham Center Parham Brook
P ParhamFountain Powers Dixon 93 Richfield Pemberton The General Transportation Gaskins Square 18 Hooper Place Westpark Brook Hill Prince Henry 93 Crenshaw
Staples Mill Chamberlayne Farm Pony Wilkinson Human Dumbarton Wilmer Huntington 23x Hungary Spring Services Bremner AM Route 23x continues Broad Brookhill to Glenside and Basie Azalea PM 18 AM Parham Park-N-Rides P PM AZALEA Azalea PM Crockett
Sandpiper Azalea
AM Cloverdale 93 26x Bethlehem 23x PM P 27x 93 Lark Guidelines in the Master Plan Route 26x continues 64 Glenside Virginia Dept. to Parham Park-N-Ride P 26x 23x Glenside Westbrook for Blind and 23x 26x 21 64 CHAMBERLAYNE Vision Impaired Crestwood 29x 23x Hermitage BROOK 29x Penick 18 B E L L E V U E 23x MAGGIE H E N R I C O 27x WALKER Richmond Henrico Turnpike Broad Bellevue 21 95 include: C O U N T Y 37 Bethlehem 93 37 32 64 93 Richmond Libbie 24 CORBIN International 18 Raceway 19 MOSS SIDE Laburnum PM LABURNUM 32 E Laburnum PILOTS • Explore transit options to meet PM 91 CHAMBERLAYNE 91 91 AM NORTH Hermitage Saunders Staples Mill Staples Parham
18 Brook Richmond G I N T E R 195 Technical Center PA R K HIGHLAND Libbie MISSOURI Laburnum Starling Westwood Westwood Westwood MEADOWBRIDGE
Hamilton 34
community and commerce Starling 24 32 W Broad LADIES MILE
Forest FENDALL H I G H L A N D Westwood Henrico Doctors’ Libbie Place Discovery 24 21 37 32 E 1ST PA R K Hospital 64 Franklin Rolling Hills 1
Skipwith Loumour 2 Farms 18 Forest 91 Dill 2 Fitzhugh 19 Brookland Park Brookland Park
Parham Three Chopt Robin Hood BROOKLAND PARK Mechanicsville 6 Regency Brook Harvie needs RADY 18 Square HORSEPEN BYRD 91 Westwood N O R T H S I D E NORTH Three Chopt Libbie Boulevard FITZHUGH Magnolia 1 Overbrook Overbrook 91 PATTERSON Bremo The Shops Laburnum
Hermitage 32 Maple at Willow Lawn 24 St. Mary’s Graham Dove Village 2 19 Willow 34
Three Chopt Three Virginia Union 6 POE Creighton
University LombardyHovey MONTEIRO WILLOW LAWN BROAD
1 James St CAMPUS MONUMENT Field School 16 Admiral 4TH 64 Boulevard University of Science Leigh 37 2 PATTERSON Richmond Libbie GROVE Museum 21 23x 27x Brook • Explore expanding transit 1 MONUMENT 26x 29x W H I T C O M B River 16 GROVE CHAMBERLAYNE C O U R T 2 Leigh Hill Cary Street PARK 1 2 3 WHITCOMB
ROSENEATH 4 6 19 COOL 3 Charity Hospital 43 25TH 91 24 Lombardy 195 SHEPPARD 4 FA I R F I E L D BROAD 64 Hospital PHAUP Laburnum
Museum Belvidere 1ST C O U R T W E S T E N D ELLWOOD FORD service to serve those with Harrison NINE MILE Henrico Co. of Fine Arts HANOVER 28x 21ST Creighton LEIGH 23RD FAIRFIELD ROBINSON Meadow Fairfield KANE Government Center 7 Allen 21 32 5TH GROVE 74 THOMPSON 4 24 Oliver Hill GRACE Courts City Justice Floyd BROAD X CARYTOWN Retreat 16 37 34 Hill Oliver Center Fairfield 74 MECHANICSVILLE 24TH 7 LOMBARDY NINE MILE Commons MAIN BELMONT 16 ROTHESAY IDLEWOOD 11 16 7 NINE MILE special needs GROVE 43 44 45 CREIGHTON 7 74 Coalter CARY GRACE Airport 1 2 3 Fairmount 91 Social Sec. HARRISON 18th Freeman 3 Floyd 16 64 Lumber R E V I R S ME A J MCCLOY FRANKLIN 4 6 10 Meadow Admin. VCU GRANT IDLEWOOD 19 21 24 NINE MILE 7 28x Main MOSBY 25TH White Oak Village 4 Boulevard Leigh 56 91 10 Chippenham Monroe 16 11 U O 22ND P Cary 28x Gay Dakar Allen 10 Park DOWNTOWN C H U R C H WEST Main 16 28TH LABURNUM Venable Q 29TH H I L L MCCLOY 30TH 7 BELMONT ROWLAND 91
RICHMOND TULIP Audubon 10 Cary RICHMOND IDLEWOOD 51 7 43 11 43 25TH 45 WILLIAMSBURG Airport Social Sec. S T O N Y William CANAL See inset R OAKWOOD
MOSBY 23RD 41 44 BRIEL Millers Admin. LAKEVIEW HARRISON 64x 66x 70 BROAD Williamsburg P O I N T Byrd MEADOW Stony Point 51 45 21ST M 41 64x 66x Park Winder ALLEN 81x 82x 71 Jefferson 29TH 56 7 81x 82x BYRD Leigh O 70 Park 45 45 P 35TH 51 Eubank • Support bus and rail service, Huguenot Lombardy Gambles 71 Chippenham Stony Point 72 Clay 41 36TH Klockner Oregon Hill BELVIDERE Hill Park 11 Eubank 36TH Shopping Center 3 10 LOMBARDY 73 44 51 Sarellen 56 RANDOLPH 60 52 M 56 31ST Buford 74 Sa-Su Grace CHIMBORAZO COLORADO 61 62 53 18th 41 Oliver Hill Leigh 63 68 CLAY 37th Norman Richmond Franklin 51 MARSHALL OX FO R D PENN M-Sa 21st 56 International Forest Hill 64x Riverview 95x MAIN Forest Hill 56 Airport as needed, in mixed use areas 70 CARTER EAST END Kenmore Cemetery
Broad Glenwood 70 52 25th Glen AldenCharles City M-Sa 64x NEW YORK JENNIE SCHER 35TH 70 Powhite 71 Cary 53 Crestview
Choctaw Airport Forest Hill 29th 64x Sheila Belle Route 64x P 70 66x Isle Chimborazo continues to 70 Bon Air M-Sa Park Government Old Gun Rd & 70 SEMMES 31st Duryea Dr via Baptist MONTROSE Westover Hills identified on the Land Use Plan Thompson FOREST HILL 74 J A M E S R I V E R STONY RUN Laburnum Huguenot Rd Church Walmart MS 52 HEIGHTS Bliley 72 52 73 53 PM Powhite 20TH 14th Gillies Creek Park 66x HULL Park Hagueman AM 81x COMMERCE 95 52 COWARDIN M-Sa PM AM ACCOMAC 82x 63 CENTRAL WO O D L A N D ADMIRAL GRAVELY 56 61 RAWLINGS Seven Hills Route 81x continues to Blakemore Forest Hill Map JAHNKE PA R K CJW Hospital and Chesterfield Chippenham 61 JAHNKE Park 60 P 70 SEMMES CARLISLE Lowe’s Park-N-Ride Boulders Hospital Bainbridge 71 62 Sa-Su 71 FOREST HILL HULL 52 HIOAKS 70 JEFFERSON DAVIS Route 81x service ends on July 1. 101 68 MAURY
WESTOVER HILLS WESTOVER 71 52 Glenway M-Sa WILLIAMSBURG Wainwright German School 53 Route 82x continues to Commerce 56
Waverly Salem National P Blandy Commonwealth 20 Park-N-Ride 95x DARBYTOWN Parker Cemetery 71 Clopton Chippenham 16TH Route 95x continues to 71 MIDLOTHIAN Petersburg Transit Center CARNATION 61 Spring Rock Green / ROANOKE 101 61 Virginia College CRUTCHFIELD Maury Centura M-Sa 63 HULL 53 College 63 66x 71 M-Sa 63 M-F Vinton Edgelawn M-Sa Rock Broad DINWIDDLE M-Sa 29th 18TH 56 66x Midlothian 101 MIDLOTHIAN 63 60 German School
63 Giant • Support commuter and light Midlothian MIDLOTHIAN M-Sa Select trips only. 62 Sa-Su M-Sa See route 101 schedule. 68 63 63 71 72 74 Louisa M-Sa M-Sa Biggs 73
Warwick Village Warwick 101 M-Sa BRUCE LONE Carnation Commerce Belt Hopkins Harwood HARWOOD Chippenham Kroger 63 M-Sa 60 Square Stonebridge HULL rail service to selected areas Warwick Sa-Su 60 CHAMBERS Darbytown 62 68 62 Sa-Su S O U T H S I D E Southside Plaza 101 Holy Springs Laburnum Warwick Southside Comm. M-Sa BELT Mimosa
Services MINEFEE JEFFERSON DAVIS
BROAD ROCK ROYALL HULL SOUTHWOOD McGuire 74 VA Hospital COLUMBIA LYNHAVEN Sa-Su 62 S WA N S O N 60 60 101 M-Sa Swanson 60 68 60 WARWICK Sa-Su 62 101 M-Sa BELLEMEADE 32 32 34 26x 23x 26x 28x J. Sargeant Reynolds 27x 29x 27x 29x Community College DOWNTOWN RICHMOND CLARKSON 74 SOUTH BRADY
3RD 34 1ST JACKSON BROAD ROCK
Jackson 2ND
HULL 4TH
8TH
9TH 11th Derwent 21 Orcutt LEIGH LEIGH 24 72 37 32 37 34 32 34 37 21 Leigh 1–4 10 11 73 74 (Mon-Fri) 68 Temporary
10 16 41 45 51 44 43 GRTC Transit System 2132 37 74 Transfer Convention HULL Coliseum Plaza (9th St) Elkhardt Warwick Center 60 Clay CLAY 74 Clay
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 16, 21, 5th
34
24
70 –73 74 –73 70
Chippenham 24, 32, 34, 37, 41, 51, 43, 10TH 8TH
74 Ruffin 7th 44, 45, 52, 53, 60, 61, 62, Chippenham 72 VCU 60 6160 62 68 63 70 71 63, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 VCU Medical Mall 32 MARSHALL MCV Center MARSHALL Commerce
32 6 52 53 1–4 7
41 43–45 51 41 43–45 2137
21 32 24 37 Philip 10 52 53 1–4 19 Marshall Bells 52 53
Morris 10TH
1ST 11 52 53 Library of
11TH 2ND 72 73 9TH 7TH Virginia 3234 City 56 Bells Hall WALMSLEY SCHEMATIC MAP 7 56 74 (Mon-Fri) 74 BROAD 7 For many long-time Richmond NOT TO SCALE BROAD LEGEND N 68 56 WALMSLEY 1 2 3 21 24 37 21 24 37 73 4 6 10 41 72
19 21 24 10 6 10 16 16 6 41 51 43 44 45 43
3rd 1st
11
GRTC Bus Routes Map Symbols 68 63 70 71 72–74 – 60 72 73 70 –73 44 BROAD 1 2 3 4 DUPONT 52 53 74
74 2ND 45
21 37 24
FLUVANNA Dale 16 9TH 00 Local Route School/University 16 6 51 GRACE 00 Hospital/Medical Center GRACE
68 74
16 52 53 1–4 16 52 53 1–4 16 72–74 6 residents, fond memories include 16 Capitol Sq 14TH 00 72–74 Shopping Center/Mall BANTON 74 37 34
6 52 53
60– 63 68 63 70 71 60– 8TH 56 00 5TH Library 7TH
00 Trenton 11 16 52 53 State International Airport FRANKLIN 16 FRANKLIN Capitol 16 70 71
52 53 16 00x Express Route Other Point of Interest
21 32 24
4TH 37 37 3234 Public Library 12th the electric streetcars that Park-N-Ride Location 72 73 Bank P 72 Main Branch Maxxim 70 71 MAIN Medical 74 MAIN 60 – 63 68 74 11 Service Levels Main Main 11 52 53 6 11 16 52 53 52 21 24 37 53
73 74 5TH 8TH 37
72 - 74
Thick route line denotes a frequent, daily service. 3234 12TH traveled along Broad Street and Service levels in the evening and on the weekend vary. Food Lion 14TH Medium route line denotes a less frequent, weekday service. CARY Service levels in the evening and on the weekend vary. CARY CARY 16 53 53 60 – 63 68
2ND 70 71 72 73 Thin route line denotes a limited, weekday service.
32 34 9TH Service levels in the evening and on the weekend vary. CANAL 70 71 CANAL 70 60 61 71 Route badges indicate days of operation along the route section. 72 73 74 Sa-Su 62 63 M-Sa 00 00 70 64x 66x 72 73 Solid - Daily, White - Monday to Friday only. 68 other corridors to provide public Daily Mon-Fri 71 81x 82x 74 transportation in Richmond. Effective: May 2016
Although ownership of the 358.GRTC(4782) For full passenger information, please scan the QR code to streetcar system changed hands ridegrtc.com visit our website ridegrtc.com on several occasions, the street- cars operated continuously until 1949 when buses replaced the last Today, the Richmond area has alighting in the Richmond area, electric streetcars. When the old a public transit network that is GRTC’s fixed route bus service track system was removed and limited by funding and jurisdic- remains the principal mass replaced with bus service, the end tional support for such services. transit option for travel within of an era occurred in Richmond. the Richmond metropolitan area. Incorporated in 1973, the Since that time, more and more GRTC Transit System (GRTC) GRTC is a non-profit public Richmond area residents have is the sole fixed route bus service service corporation, owned relied on private automobiles for provider in the Richmond area. equally by the City of Richmond the majority of their trips, and
Although AMTRAK offers and Chesterfield County and Transit Regional public transportation services intercity rail service to the public, governed by a Board of Directors. shifted to filling the needs of the with several routes boarding and There are 166 transit vehicles, area’s transportation dependent. 223 which include both buses and GRTC operates a highly efficient to three routes. Signs and kiosks cutaway vans, which provide bus system, but one which does identify each bay and provide bus fixed route services to the Cities not provide extensive service schedule information, maps and of Richmond and Petersburg, coverage in the suburban areas arrival times. and the Counties of Henrico and surrounding the downtown core Chesterfield. Fixed route services of the region. In 2011, with funding support are a combination of local and from RRTPO and the DRPT, express bus service, with all Existing GRTC bus routes are GRTC produced a “Transit local route buses equipped with are shown graphically on the Development Plan” (TDP) -- a low-floor entry, wheelchairGRTC Routes System Map comprehensive evaluation of ramps, and front-mounted from May 2016 to the right. GRTC’s service and cost char- bicycle racks. acteristics. The next update to GRTC has undertaken a number the TDP is currently underway For qualified disabled riders who of projects to enhance customer as of the plan2040 update. Key are unable to use fixed-route service and convenience. These elements of the TDP include: service, GRTC offers paratransit include the installation of new • Development of goals, service through the CARE bus stop signs, and institution objectives and performance standards; program. CARE provides curb- of a mobile app which features a trip planner, a bus stop search to-curb service for eligible riders. • A peer agency review; Eligibility for the program is capability, real time bus tracking, in accord with the Americans and service updates. Additionally, • Evaluation of service characteristics and with Disabilities Act (ADA). GRTC has undertaken the system-wide replacement of fare identification of strengths and More information on the CARE weaknesses; service is described in a following boxes with electronic devices section. that enable riders to use a greater • Results of a transit on-board variety of fare payment options. survey; GRTC oversees RideFinders, GRTC has also introduced a • Listing of potential service and the region’s transportation series of one, seven and thirty facility improvements; demand management agency, day unlimited ride passes that and C-VAN, a welfare-to-work may be purchased at the farebox, • Recommended service transportation service provided selected vendors, at RideFinders changes and capital improvements; in cooperation with local social or online. service agencies. • Funding requirements and In April 2014, GRTC opened potential funding sources. GRTC’s bus route structure a temporary downtown transfer can be described as a hub-and- center along North Ninth and spoke system, where service East Leigh Streets. The plaza, Specific recommendations converges on a central downtown which was created to improve included in the TDP are sepa- area – near Richmond City Hall on-time performance and provide rated into near-term (six year and the VCU medical campus a central location to transfer, also time period) and long term -- and then fans out into the provides enhanced amenities to considerations. Generally, the surrounding neighborhoods. The aid in way-finding customers. The types of specific recommended express routes provide direct plaza is intended to minimize improvements include: • Routing changes service from the surrounding the disturbance of bus traffic
Regional Transit Regional residential areas in the outlying during events that occur along • Scheduling improvements counties to downtown Richmond Broad Street, and features 13 224 with few stops in between. curbside bus bays shared by one • Service span extensions • Improvements to public based on eligibility requirements Other Transportation information established by the Americans Services with Disabilities Act (ADA) and A 2013 update to the TDP receive an identification card and In addition to Bay Transit, there assessed GRTC’s progress in program information. are other transportation services attaining the goals of the TDP. available to commuters in rural The Update also presented key The overall level of service in areas. For example, RideFinders, service and financial projections the City of Richmond and a division of GRTC, assists through FY2020. Henrico County is adequate in commuters, including those both coverage and availability; living in the region’s rural areas, In addition to the TDP, in July however, demand is expected to find carpools and vanpools. 2013, the Richmond Strategic to increase dramatically as the Commuters traveling to jobs Multimodal Plan was completed. senior population increases faster in Hampton Roads may use a The plan identifies the following on a percentage basis than total similar service called Traffix. guiding principles that will guide population. In addition, the transit-related decisions: general regional population is There also are services not avail- • Safety also expected to grow rapidly able to the general public, but are provided to persons who qualify • Multimodal linkages which also may result in increased demand for CARE service. for paratransit services based • Regional coordination Travel Training on age, income, or disability. Transportation for elderly, • Sustainability In late 2015 GRTC initiated disabled and low-income indi- a travel training program for • Alternative mode support viduals is available from a wide current CARE customers 18 and variety of providers, including • Innovation older. The program provides riders those providers who are reim- with the skills need to utilize fixed bursed through Medicaid. GRTC CARE route transit service and includes instruction in essential travel In 2007 a statewide process to GRTC’s CARE service is a skills, making judgments about improve coordination of trans- curb-to-curb service available to safety and danger, and using portation for special populations eligible customers in the system’s appropriate social and commu- began under the leadership of fixed-route service area. Operated nication skills. One-on-one the Virginia Department of on a contract basis at this time and group training are provided Rail and Public Transportation by MV Transit, the service area and the program includes bus (VDRPT). The elements of the includes the City of Richmond familiarization sessions as well Coordinated Human Services and Henrico County. In addition as a ‘travel buddy” component. In Mobility Plan included an to the ADA-mandated service for addition to providing riders with assessment of available services; customers residing within ¾ of a the freedom and confidence to an assessment of transporta- fixed transit route, GRTC also travel independently throughout tion needs for individuals with offers CARE PLUS service in the community, the program is disabilities, older adults, and areas of Henrico and Richmond intended to divert at least 10% people with low incomes; iden- not serviced by local transit of the CARE trips to fixed route tification of strategies, activities routes. To be eligible for CARE at an estimated savings of over and/or projects to address the and CARE PLUS service, an $400,000. identified needs and gaps; and application must be submitted the prioritization of the strate- Transit Regional to ADA Ride (www.adaride. gies, activities, and/or projects com). Customers are approved based on resources, time and 225 feasibility for implementation. Short Term (0-2 years) The plan was updated in May, 1. Establish a specialized transportation services coordination entity 2014 to “identify examples of projects and programs initi- 2. Through the coordination entity, develop and maintain a directory ated since the issuance of the of transportation services 2008 plans which demonstrate 3. Utilize the coordination entity as a means to develop more consis- human service transportation tent policies and guidelines for the provision and use of specialized enhancements and coordination transportation services efforts…” and to develop “…a plan that meets coordinated 4. Through the coordination entity, initiate a dialogue between dialysis transportation requirements and treatment centers and other medical centers and transportation facilitates access to critical FTA providers to identify opportunities for coordination and increased monies.” consideration of specialized transportation operational issues in Needs and Gaps Assessment scheduling medical appointments for the Transportation Mid-Range (3-5 years) Disadvantaged 5. Provide incentives for the use of public transit, including training In 2015, the RRTPO undertook related to how to access and use existing services the development of a report Needs and Gaps Assessment for the 6. Explore opportunities to use transportation network companies Transportation Disadvantaged. 7. Utilize the site plan review and approval process as an opportunity Available on the RRTPO to ensure that proposed new development can be readily accessed by website, elements of this study larger vehicles included the identification of the transportation disadvantaged Long Term (6-10 years) groups, an evaluation of the 8. Provide curb cuts, sidewalks, benches, bus shelters, pedestrian facil- demand for specialized services, ities and lighting at public transit stops a review and analysis of existing services and the gaps between 9. Establish partnerships with employers for the purpose of securing existing services and estimated financial support for work-related transportation services demand, the identification of specialized transportation issues, 10. Institute expanded services to under-served areas and forecasts of the future demand for specialized services. Using the findings from the report, the following recommen- dations for the enhancement of human service transportation were developed: Regional Transit Regional
226 this page intentionally left blank Regional Transit Regional
227 228 Bicycle & Pedestrian
The long-term investment in cycling and pedestrian transportation infrastructure is often challenging to grasp. These modes typically provide, small-scale or neighborhood- level access opportunities, while long-term planning efforts are focused on a regional scale. Additionally, it is only recently that bike and pedestrian planning and infrastructure investment has reemerged as a core element of a functional and multi- faceted transportation system. Previous transportation policy and investment efforts have been predominantly focused on vehicular travel. As attitudes toward development of a multimodal transportation infrastructure continue to evolve, the Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization will continue to work with its partners to create a regional infrastructure base that reflects the desires and needs of the localities and agencies the RRTPO serves.
This chapter includes information on the value and benefit of cycling and walking, as well as regional recommendations for ensuring the integrating of these infrastructure modes into the existing and future transportation fabric. This chapter will also provide a brief overview into federal and state bicycle and pedestrian programs and funding strategies, and will conclude with an existing conditions assessment for both the region and the nine localities that partner with the RRPDC.
229 Making Cycling and highways, cycling and walking • Place emphasis on conventional facilities: Walking Viable are negated as options. For utilitarian travel like commuting, bike/walk patrons When considered, cycling and Regional are more likely to be interested walking are of the healthiest Recommendations for in an efficient, direct path with modes of transportation. Utilizing acceptable safety levels, rather Encouraging Biking and than a path which is scenic but these modes on a regular basis Walking indirect. reduces the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, and In stimulating higher rates of • Promote linkages for diabetes. Furthermore, cycling continuity: Even where cycling and walking, the region systems of bike trails, paths, or and walking can help improve can develop an overall trans- walkways exist, they may fall air quality and decrease noise portation management strategy. short if there are significant pollution. Given all the known This strategy is cost effective gaps or barriers in the network benefits of these modes, why do to connect activity centers. from a public investment point Continuity can be improved only 3.4% of 142 million working of view, especially considering through careful planning and Americans bike or walk to work? the favorable impacts upon air identification of obstacles. quality and community health. There are numerous answers to • Consider the linkage with this question. Some argue that The following are technical and transit: While cycling or walking typical commute distances are policy actions which can be taken as a primary mode to work can offer significant benefits, too far to make either of these to maximize the benefits of these modes: improving congestion and air modes a feasible option. Others quality may be even greater if • Include bicycle/pedestrian bicycling and walking are given claim that biking and walking links when planning for greater attention as supporting are not safe in urban/suburban transportation projects: modes by connecting with Bicycling and walking areas. And still others believe transit for longer trips. that bicycling and walking have linkages are viable modes for connections between • Seek private sector not been championed in public residential areas and activity involvement and support: policy as a viable option, partic- center. When these modes are Developers play an important carefully considered in relation ularly in the United States. All of role in the potential for bike/ to regional transit systems these perspectives are reasonable pedestrian use in the design and in the design of activity of buildings and subdivisions, and it’s likely that all of them, centers, they can support in terms of the location of plus numerous others, have access and circulation other buildings relative to streets, contributed to marginalizing than just by private vehicles. other buildings, services, and cycling and walking as everyday transit. Similarly, employers transportation modes. That being • Target scarce resources for can be encouraged to increase settings with the greatest said, about a third of all trips in attention to bike/walk use payoff: These include settings through provision of bike the US are within 2 miles, while where travel distances facilities and showers and over half of all trips are within 5 between residential areas and changing facilities. miles. These trip distances are key trip attractors are relatively short; settings where there are well within biking and walking • Provide marketing and high concentrations of people education: Assuming shed distances; however, safety under 40 (such as university strategies can be implemented concerns and lack of dedicated communities); and areas where which materially enhance the facilities keep these modes from there already exists compatible environment for cycling or infrastructure which can be being viable options. If work is walking, it will be important Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle modified into appropriate to notify the public of the five miles away, but the only roads facilities. changes and their potential leading to the office are major 230 benefits. In the long-term, realizing the in 2005. Like the transporta- and pedestrian accommodations. ultimate potential of cycling tion acts before it, the FAST The result of this review was the and walking depends on altering Act largely maintains the Commonwealth Transportation numerous factors including current program structures and Board’s ‘Policy for Integrating but not limited to current allocations. Regarding bike Bicycle and Pedestrian development trends, planning and pedestrian programming, Accommodations’ (called simply procedures, funding programs, Congress has approved allo- Policy) adopted in March 2004, and preferences which are condi- cations of approximately 800 which established cycling and tioned on current experience. million per year over the life walking as “fundamental travel Towards this end, the measures of the bill. However, the once modes” and guided VDOT’s listed above should significantly independent Transportation consideration of bicycling and increase the use and associated Alternatives Program has now walking in the planning, funding, benefits of these oft-neglected, been rolled into the Surface design, construction, mainte- yet time-honored transportation Transportation Program (STP). nance, and operation of Virginia’s modes. This program consolidationtransportation network. provides more opportunity for Statewide Bicycle and Pedes- Bicycle and Pedestrian these once bike and pedestri- trian Policy Plans Planning at the Federal an-specific funds to be flexed or In 2011, VDOT released State Level diverted to non-bike/ped trans- Bicycle Policy Plan. The purpose portation improvements. The Intermodal Surface of this Plan is to establish a vision Transportation Efficiency Act Bicycle and Pedestrian for the future of bicycling in the (ISTEA) of 1991 enacted Planning at the State Commonwealth and to advance the bicycle element of the Policy significant changes to Federal Level transportation policy and (2004) “consistently, appropri- programs that expanded VDOT’s state bicycle and ately, and cost effectively.” consideration of and eligi- pedestrian program, which has The 2011 VDOT State Bicycle bility for cycling and walking. been promoting bicycling and Policy Plan has two major goals These expanded policies and walking within the state since as listed below: programs were reinforced with the late 1970s, provides planning • Goal 1: To increase the use of the Transportation Equity Act assistance to state and local bicycling in Virginia to include for the 21st Century (TEA-21) transportation planners, activity a full and diverse range of the population for all trip purposes. in 1998, the Safe Accountable, coordination for various bicycle Flexible, Efficient Transportation committees, and bicycle and • Goal 2: To improve safety Equity Act: a Legacy for Users pedestrian education and safety and comfort of bicyclists (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005 and promotions. throughout Virginia and to reduce bicycle crashes. the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). In 2003, the Virginia Secretary of Transportation set forth policy In 2014, VDOT released On December 4th 2015, the goals relating to the integration State Pedestrian Policy Plan, FAST Act, or Fixing America’s of bicycle and pedestrian travel a companion plan to the 2011 Surface Transportation Act, was into the Virginia multimodal Bicycle Policy Plan. Like the signed into law by President transportation system. As a 2011 bicycle plan, the purpose
Obama. This Act was the first result, VDOT conducted a of the Pedestrian Policy Plan & Pedestrian Bicycle long-term transportation bill comprehensive review of policies is to establish a vision for approved since SAFETEA-LU and procedures relating to bicycle the future of walking in the 231 Commonwealth and to advance the Policy across all disciplines of conservation and outdoor recre- the walking element of the Policy the department. ation needs of Virginia. The “consistently, appropriately, and Trails and Greenways portion of Element 2: Provide staff training cost-effectively.” the plan best addresses pedes- and guidance to integrate the trian and bicycle networks and The 2014 VDOT StatePolicy requirements in projects facilities on a statewide level. Pedestrian Policy Plan has five and programs. VDOT staff In particular the plan promotes major goals as listed below: should receive training and active communities and open • Goal 1: Improve the safety guidance on their job responsi- spaces linked by trails and green- and comfort of pedestrians bilities in order to ensure they throughout Virginia and reduce ways that connect individuals, are able to design, construct, pedestrian related crashes. children and their families to operate, and maintain roadways nature and to each other • Goal 2: Enhance mobility and that safely and appropriately accessibility for pedestrians. accommodate bicycling/walking Bicycle and pedestrian facili- • Goal 3: Achieve a more as a multimodal option. ties are listed under “Trails and connected pedestrian network Greenways” which identify the Element 3: Improve outreach in Virginia. following as goals for Virginia: and coordination. In addition • Goal 1: Enhance access to • Goal 4: Better promote and to VDOT, there are many other the outdoors through the educate planners, designers, agencies and organizations in the development of a trails advocates, and stakeholders Commonwealth responsible for network that promotes healthy on the requirements of the recreation and connects CTB Policy for Integrating implementing bicycle/pedestrian citizens, including children Bicycle and Pedestrian projects and programs. A high- and families, to Virginia’s Accommodations. level of coordination among diverse open space and natural landscapes. • Goal 5: Improve available these entities will benefit stake- guidance on pedestrian holders and the general public. • Goal 2: Improve linkages accommodations. between communities and Element 4: Measure and evaluate key tourist destinations in progress. Regular monitoring both rural and urban areas Both Plans maintain the same and evaluation of bicycle/pedes- to promote regional outdoor four core elements that outline trian performance measures recreation and heritage each plans’ more specific recom- tourism initiatives, support will help ensure that the bicycle local economies, and provide mendations. The core elements mode is included in the everyday economic stimuli for small are listed below: operations of VDOT, so Virginia business startups and entrepreneurial expansion. Element 1 : Clarify Policies with can continue moving toward a regard to bicycle/pedestrian truly multimodal transportation • Goal 3: Create the foundation accommodations. VDOT should network. of a statewide system of interconnected open-space provide additional guidance on The Virginia Outdoors Plan corridors through which trails the planning, design, operation, traverse, in order to support and maintenance of bicycle/ Released in 2013 by the Virginia long-term protection of pedestrian facilities. In some Virginia’s green infrastructure Department of Conservation and and the ecological services it cases, this will involve clarifying Recreation (DRC) the Virginia provides. or revising existing policies and Outdoors Plan is the state’s procedures. In other cases, it will official conservation, outdoor Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle involve developing new resources recreation and open-space plan. to guide the implementation of It is a guide to meet the land 232 • Goal 4: Integrate trails as a south: Hanover, Ashland, back Trail. From Fredericksburg, critical component in Virginia’s transportation infrastructure, to Hanover, Henrico, Richmond, the ECG continues south to in order to provide efficient Chesterfield, and Powhatan. Richmond, where the Greenway and convenient nonmotorized divides into two routes: the spine connections to neighborhoods, USBR 76 runs from Yorktown, route, which continues south schools, community facilities Virginia to the eastern border of and employment centers. to North Carolina’s Piedmont Kansas (east-west) with approx- region, and the alternate Historic • Goal 5: Educate citizens about imately 560 miles in Virginia Coastal Route, which heads the trail network’s social, and 102 within the Richmond southeast through Jamestown ecological, transportation and region. USBR 76 passes through and Williamsburg before aiming wellness benefits, and foster six of the region’s nine jurisdic- educational pursuits through south toward Wilmington, N.C. environmental research, tions; from east to west: Charles James River Heritage Trail multicultural programs and City, Henrico, Richmond, back outdoor classrooms. to Henrico, Hanover, Ashland, The James River Heritage back to Hanover and Goochland. Trail is a proposed braided Existing/Proposed Virginia Capital Trail trail network in the heart of Virginia that follows the James National/Regional Bike- Virginia Capital Trail is a 51 River from the foothills of the Ped Corridors in the mile paved bicycle and pedes- Allegheny Mountains to the Richmond Region trian trail linking Richmond to Chesapeake Bay. Department US Bike Routes 1 and 76 Williamsburg along the historic of Conservation and Recreation Route 5 corridor. The project is (DCR) completed a draft plan U.S. Bike Routes 1 and 76 are divided into nine sections, and six of the 540 mile trial in August signed national bicycle touring are located within the Richmond 2011. Almost one-third of the routes that cross the Richmond Region. While each section was proposed network is located in Region. The routes intersect in completed on its own scheduled, the Richmond Region. Ashland and Hanover County. all sections are complete at this US Bicycle Route 1 (USBR 1) time and the entire 51 mile Richmond Region’s Bike- and US Bicycle Route 76 (USBR corridor is now open for use. The Ped Matrix 76) were both designated by the trail officially opened on October American Association of State 2 2015. Richmond Region’s Bike-Ped Highway and Transportation East Coast Greenway Matrix identifies the following Officials (AASHTO) in 1982. components for all the nine The East Coast Greenway While originally established in member jurisdictions of the (ECG) is a developing trail 1982, both routes were relo- Richmond region: cated in 2005. Furthermore both system, spanning 2,900 miles as • Existing policies and existing/ routes draw bicycle tourists from it winds its way between Canada planned facilities in current comprehensive plans (or around the world as well as from and Key West, linking 25 major cities along the eastern seaboard. other related plans) relating within the Region. to bicycle and pedestrian About 400 miles of the ECG facilities. USBR 1 runs from Maine to is located in Virginia. From Florida (north-south) with Washington, D.C., the ECG • Existing regulations in site plan approximately 274 miles in enters Virginia along the Mount and subdivision ordinances (or equivalent) relating to Virginia and 108 miles within Vernon Trail. From Mt. Vernon, the bicycle and pedestrian the Richmond region. USBR 1 the ECG continues on road to facilities. & Pedestrian Bicycle passes through six of the region’s Fredericksburg along the route nine jurisdictions; from north to of the future Potomac Heritage 233 • The mechanisms for programming maintenance of these facilities.
• Other related components like Safe Routes to School and Park and Ride Lots. Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle
234 Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle map 4.23. Map 4.1: Existing and Proposed Regional Bike-Trail Corridors 235 Park and Ride and Park n/a None officially designated. designated. officially None plan. inOne VDOT Improvements Other Bike and Ped BikeOther and n/a 2015 - Henry Clay Henry - 2015 Elementary School -- Infrastructure projects Clay Henry - 2010 schoolElementary and John School Gandy Elementary crossingenforcement guard and patrol safety training Clay Henry - 2010 Elementary School sidewalks and crossing Improvements. Maintenance Programming n/a n/a Proposed # East# Coast Greenway Trail Railside # Trail Run Stony De # to Jarnette Park Mechumps# along Creek Trail Trail of Extension # Parkway Hill Carter Sidewalk# gaps Ashcake on Road Pedestrian/Bike# Bridge I-95 over Priddy# park wetlands - boardwalk Green# Acres and W. Vaughan Road extended Trail Capital Virginia # (sections) Trail Capital Virginia # Extensions (Courthouse Road Wilcox & Road) Neck Bike-Ped Corridors Existing Existing # Trans-American# Route / US Bike Route 76 Interstate Bike# Route 1 Ashland# Trolley Line - 1mile N.# James Street Trail to Vaughan Road and Carters Subdivision Hill Lance# and Bridle segment connectionof Trolley from Line to YMCA Downtown# streetscape Trans-# American Route / US Bike Route 76 Trail Capital Virginia # (sections) n/a n/a Ordinances Zoning / SubdivisionZoning / Plan Adoption Date Plan Adoption Date Dec 6, 2011 2011 6, Dec Plan Comp (Reviewing 2016) - this year 2009 22, Sept. : Roxbury: Development Center, Bike- Ped In Comprehensive Plans Other / # States updating States 1998 of # Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. as Plan updated Sidewalk be # Replacement to current projects are completed. and other County Hanover with work Continued # regional partners, including East Coast the Organization aGreenway develop connected to trail system. When# road improvements are made, ashould and bike added, facilities be lane for bicyclists should available made be The route. along the appropriateness shared of lane marking or sharrows should Town investigated within be the and if application useful the road these of markings is recommended. Parks updating States the # and Recreation Master Plan. Transportation Future # Map in Comprehensive Plan bike trail denotes extension. Transportation# 2020 Plan inventories and details bike-pedestrian infrastructure. new Design Guidelines # Handbook details trail construction standards. Plans Area Courthouse Development & Hideaway & Development Courthouse lighting street Development Center Decorative to be developed crosswalks. with sidewalks/ and public transportation services used. be to Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle Ashland Ashland Charles City Jurisdiction
236 fig. 4.1. Fig. 4.1: RRTPO Bike-Ped Matrix Park And Ride And Park Stonebridge, Stonebridge, Walmart & (Brook Parham) K-Mart# (The Breckenridge Center), Route 1 & Route 10 Jefferson 12810 # Davis Hwy Lion Food (Route # 1) Walmart# (Route 10) # East# Coast - Route 10 Target - Heights Colonial DSCR# (Defense Supply Center Richmond) Chesterfield# Baptist Lowe's# on US 360 at Winterpock Road Swift# Creek Baptist Church on Spring Road Run John# Tyler College Community 1 on Route Midlothian# P&R (Lowe's, Chesterfield Town Center) Wawa# Rivers across 295 & Bend McDonald'sfrom Kroger# at Marketplace improvements Other Bike and Ped BikeOther and # 2008# - Chesterfield County elementary Schools (38) walkability audits and curriculum. 2010# - Robious Sidewalks. elementary School school Middle / Hill Clover 2010# Robious Middle School, weaver, Bettie Robious, elementary schools Enforcement crossing guard and patrol safety training connect On-going to efforts # pedestrian paths trails to and schools property # Sidewalk is is Sidewalk # # Trails# to be or Chesterfield and Recreation Maintenance Programming # Bike# lanes are unless private on maintained VDOT by maintained VDOT by maintained VDOT by Department of Parks Proposed # Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1/301), from the county line county Davis to the Jefferson 1/301), from # Highway (Route Osborne Road Willis trail(s) Johnston # Midlothian Road Trade to from Drive, Project, 60) Revitalization (Route Turnpike School Middle Manchester # connecting campus community to Road Trade Road Southlake Courthouse Boulevard, to from # Park Stratton Trail,# along Falling Chippenham from Creek Road Jessup to Parkway Swift# Creek Trail, from Pocahontas 360) (Route StateRoad Park to Hull Street Southlake Boulevard Willis Johnston from Road, Trade to # Drive Sidewalk - Active Park) Projects Hyde - (Curtis Harrowgate # Old# Centralia Road (Castlebury Oaks) Glen Mill to Ruffin at 1 Route # Belmont# (Belrun to Lamplighter) (Charter Colony Midlothian to LeGordon # Wood) Providence# (Route 60 to Woodward Bailey# Drive) Bridge (Battlecreek School) to Spring Elementary to Manchester Run Spring (Brocket # Run High School) Drive) Ken (Ivywood to Ecoff # Elkhardt at# Providence Middle School Bike Lanes/Paved Shoulders Genito Road Hill Polo Forest from to Pkwy - Huguenot Active# Avenue from Projects Trail, Park Bailey construction,# under Bridge, Claypoint HS Manchester to Complex/Horner Athletic Hill Clover # along Branch south Otterdale Road of to Trail, Riverside University Dundas# bridge Road, improvements State Ettrick/Virginia # Marina at Creek Falling Randolph River at VSU Farm along Appomattox Trail, Historic Creek Falling # Drive Road, bridge east Genito Woolridge of # Road Chesdin Lake Park# Trail, Mill Ivey from park Road to boundary Lucks# Lane, from Spirea Road to Route Old at Old# Road Bermuda 288 Stage (2 phase project) Providence Middle# School Revitalization South from Project, Providence Starlight Road to Lane Robious# Robious Road, from line county Way Forest the to Trail Park Horner # Lake# Chesdin Trail Trail Point Bayhill # Years) 10 to (0 - Plan Trails and Bikeways From 288 Southlake to Road/Route Belmont Courthouse Road, from # Boulevard Trail, Connector Salem Church from Road Center Government # Road/Route Pocahontas Bridge through Park Newbys to State 288 Bike-Ped Corridors Existing Existing # Village of Midlothian (Coalfield Road/Route 60/Woolridge 60/Woolridge Road/Route (Coalfield Midlothian of Village # Road) Meadowdale(Hopkins/Meadowbrook/Cogbill)# Hill/Buford) (Forest Air Bon # Ettrick# (Chesterfield Ave and side Harrowgate# streets) (Old Hundred School – Osborne (Cliff# shopping – Street) Lawn center) Route# 10, Village of Chester, Pedestrian Smoketree# (community Improvements center – Courthouse 360 of Road, South Genito # Road) Providence# (Route 60 – Woodward) Old (East Genito) # Boundary Hundred – Kelly# Green Drive (Old Hundred Spirea school) – # (Mountain Sunflower) Laurel – Salem Church# (Sara schools) Kay – Cogbill# (Chesterwood Howell) – Deer# Run (US 360 Chital) – Coalfield# (Route 60 Watkins – Robious# Crossing ES) schools) (Polo – Pkwy Various# roadway projects including pedestrian accomodations Bike Lanes/Paved Shoulders 150 to Beach 10, Route # Courthouse Road, 60 360 to # 288 to 360 Road, Courthouse # Bailey# Bridge, 360 to Glen Gordon School to Drive, Yarrow Lane Road Tara Smoketree # Ironbridge Point# (or Parkway, Landing Arbor Stephens Drive to 10) Route Coalfield# Charter Colony to Road, Genito Coalfield# Charter Colony to Road, Genito Charter Colony# Parkway, Coalfield Woolridge to Road Woolridge# Road, 60 Charter Colony to Road, 360 Courthouse Genito to # Ridge 360 Road, South to Genito # Fox Chase to Lane Ridge South Road, Genito # Spirea to bike path Courthouse (connects to Lucks Lane, # constructed with Rt 288) Robious# Road, Old Air Woodmont Bon to Robious# Road, Polo Parkway Salisbury to Robious Robious – # Forest) Team (Twin Bailey# Bridge (Claypoint Various Manchester – # roadway projects including bike lanes/paved HS) shoulders Sidewalk Matoaca # Village# of Chester
Criteria. pedestrian Acceptance Acceptance # For# newly (per VDOT's # Generally,# - Functional- submission. submitted insubmitted Ordinances classifcation classifcation required as a sidewalks are by the Publicly the by Requirements): Secondary Street plan or tentative subdivision plan for development. # Subdividers# are - Median lot sizes lot Median - a pedestrian plan required based on accomodations are sidewalks as defined be accepted by VDOT VDOT by accepted be followingthe factors required to constructrequired to Maintained Sidewalk conjunction site with # County can County request # - Average daily traffic daily Average - constructed streets to - Proximity- schools to Zoning/Subdivision condition approval of Date Dates Nov. 18, 2015 18, Nov. Plan Adoption Adopted VariousAdopted Bike- Ped In Comprehensive Plans Other Plan/ Bikeways and Trails Plan 14 Chesterfield (Chapter of Plan)Comprehensive States# to establish a comprehensive recreational both of needs accommodating andby: the bikeway system cyclists;commuter developing a primary bikeway focused Pocahontas on Park network and State the 10 and Road Courthouse corridors;Route and building link to population network the concentrations and nodes of activity. States# to create a bikeway system that pursuing is by: expansioneffective existing cost- through rights- biking and working the with andof-way easements; disseminate to community information and receive condition about the andfeedback usability the of system. States# to ensure that the bikeway encouraging by: County the of system development with grows along provide interlinking to developers bike routes; reserving natural areas and open for bikeways; site plans the processstrengthening review assure to integration bikeways of developments; the into new and incorporating of bikeways development into the facilities. public new Accessibility Pedestrian Plans: Area Chesterfield# Area Plans fallregarding polices addressing into pedestrian three movement: categories plans address not do that pedestrian accessibility, plans vaguely address that improving pedestrian accessibility; and plans detailed with goals and objectives regarding pedestrian accessibility and mobility. Air Bon Community latter include Examples the # of the: Plan; Midlothian Eastern Plan; Plan; Chester Midlothian Plan; Area Plan; Northern Community Area Powhite Route 288 facilities Development Area pedestrian Plan; Plan. Corridor Route 360 incorporating include: Policies # and roads; developments developing a into new appropriate; where pedestriancomprehensive network linking pedestrian and public to bike routes facilities schools, parks,(e.g., libraries, recreation sites); and encouraging land accommodates pedestrian use that movement. Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle Chesterfield Jurisdiction fig. 4.2. Fig. 4.1: RRTPO Bike-Ped Matrix 237 Park And Ride And Park # I-64# at Ashland Rd Oilville at I-64 # Rd #Centerville/West Creek Area (future) # US 360 and Rte. Rte. and 360 US # 640 improvements Other Bike and Ped BikeOther and n/a Laurel Meadow Elementary School, in 2011completed n/a property sidewalks sidewalks Maintenance Programming # Bike# lanes and unless private on maintained VDOT by Proposed #Goochland Village, Courthouse #River Road Community West Creek Multi-use Trail #Trolley Line Trail Trail #Mattaponi #Pamunkey Trail #East Coast Greenway Bike-Ped Corridors Existing Existing # Bike# Route 76 Park Battlefield Harbor #Cold #Hanover Wayside Park #Montpelier Park Battlefield Anna Park #North #Pole Green Park Park Farm #Poor Park#Courthouse #Washington Lacy Park required Use §26-54 Use Street Buffer Street Buffer Street Buffer Ordinances #Multi-Family #Multi-Family #Single-family #Single-family sidewalks and interconnectivity Overlay Districts, Districts, Overlay Appendix A, Route Route A, Appendix Zoning Ordinance, Village Courthouse 250 and Goochland Districts - Permitted #Rural Conservation - District Residential Residential District - - District Residential #Mixed-Use District - Requirements §26-66 Requirements §26-77 Requirements §26-96 Zoning/Subdivision Date June 4, 2015 4, June Sept. 11, 2013 11, Sept. Plan Adoption Bike- Ped In Comprehensive Plans Other Plan/ #Area Plans:#Area Centerville Village/Goochland Courthouse Village/West Creek Build# small pedestrian of pathways segments or bikeways basis project-by-project on an form to pedestrian of pathways network in the interconnected long term as segments are connected. well-designed pedestrian Safe, pathways# be to village by design recommended provided when standards. Design standards address landscaping, lighting, buildings, of placement and parking to walkability. improve transportation County’s in the network Investment # travel should promote: different of (including#Safety pedestrian safety) interconnectivity and #Accessibility modes West# Creek trail. Multi-use multi-use Trail public a - with Connect6 Rte. 250 and Rte. Identify suitable# location for Park-and-Ride lot in Centerville Area Plan, Comprehensive TransportationThe Plan, roads designed inrecommends be accordance with illustrated cross sections, which of some include sidewalks/ bike ways; objectives include providing options for multimodal transportation networks design reduces that landthrough development vehicles. motorized on dependency Plan, Plan,Comprehensive Use Land includes includesstrategies that for suburban development interconnection communities of to the promoting vehicular,enhance bicycle, and pedestrian circulation along demand and existing reduce and proposed thoroughfares. Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle Hanover Goochland Goochland Jurisdiction
fig. 4.3. Fig. 4.1: RRTPO Bike-Ped Matrix 238 Park And Ride And Park Park And Ride And Park # Gaskins Road at I- at Road Gaskins # 64 at Road Parham # Fordson Road Glenside # Drive Mill Staples and Road, Village Oak #White Shopping Center Designated Park and Rides at Route 60 in Bottoms andBridge just off on 214 Exit Road. Poindexter None. *K- Mart*K- - Midlothian & Tpke Pl Greshamwood Plaza*Southside improvements improvements Other Bike and Ped BikeOther and Other Bike and Ped BikeOther and n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a the ROW are maintenance bicycle lanes. bicycle maintained by Maintenance agreement that Programming Henrico County Henrico County Maintenance repair broken or or broken repair signage or poles unless there is a Programming # No# maintenance policies regarding regarding policies # Sidewalks within within Sidewalks # Funding in place to indicates otherwise. missing bicycle route route bicycle missing Proposed Proposed • East• Coast Greenway Additional• connections Capital and spurs VA Trail the to Construction• trails mixed-used of feasible where in conjunction with projects road improvement #Sidewalk retrofit projects countywide#Pedestrian accommodations transit along GRTC routes where feasible (between connector Courthouse to Courthouse progressContinued the on 155) alongCharles Kent Route City and New # James# River Heritage Trail Population Parks# to Centers lane*22 miles bike lanes of and contraflow) (buffered in FY17 2025 by lanes *Avg bike of 2+ of lane miles miles lane of bike additional boulevards*~80 each year paths*Shared-use and as greenways available. funding becomes year. Existing per mile linear 1 of goal Bike-Ped Corridors Bike-Ped Corridors Existing Existing Existing Existing # Trans-American# Route / US Bike Route Interstate# 76 Bike Route Trail 1 Capital VA # Sidewalks# all on and thoroughfares. reconstructed new County are 6 designated bicycle the There throughout # routes and#Pedestrian Courthouse accommodations areas Kent in New Village Bridge Bottoms #Interstate Bike Route 1 (along Genito#3 "Share Road) the Road" Library to #Courthouse Trails Park Creek #Fighting of miles lane 8 than more *80+ including lane lanes miles bike of of signed miles lane bike*24 routes with sharrows bike lanes buffered *4 lane miles of bike/walk streets linear*3 miles shared-use paved, of paths and James bridge over associated bike/ped *Potterfield paths constructionunder n/a n/a Includes residential residential lighting and within areas Ordinances landscaping, subdivision Ordinances draft includes provisions for sidewalks and infrastructure. connectivity to requirements for subdivisions and accommodations in form currently. The currently. The form including pedestrian way and pedestrian existing city right of of right city existing designated as Village as designated Zoning/Subdivision Revisions to the City's Zoning/Subdivision ordinance are in draft Date Date revisions BMP will be be will BMP Aug. 11, 2009 11, Aug. 2012 12, Oct. July 12 2010 12 July adopted asadopted an Plan revisions revisions Plan Plan Adoption appendix to the appendix the to Plan Adoption SMTP completed January 2013 but part of Comp Planpart Comp of will as adopted be SMTP with the Comp Comp the with SMTP *"Richmond Connects" Connects" *"Richmond Bike- Ped In Comprehensive Plans Other Plan/ Bike- Ped In Comprehensive Plans Other Plan/ # States to facilitate bicycle travel along all planned and existing existing and : planned all Policies along Facility travel Bicycle bicycle facilitate to States # longdesignated, distance bicycle 76 1, and (Rtes VA county in routes the Capital Trail) signage, use of shared through lanes, bike lanes and shared use paths. consider accommodation Sates to # bicycles of the planning in the and design of all major road bicycle encourage to States accommodations# projects in conjunction new with where feasible. facilities. development. bicycle for locations bicycle a of county-wide plan consider development to States in the potential # order evaluate and identify to Policies: Pedestrians install to developments new sidewalks encourage to States # and other pedestrian facilities. neighborhoods Connections other and to key destinations such as schools, libraries, are encouraged. parks, etc., Sidewalks# pedestrian and pathways other along all and reconstructed new major thoroughfares excluding highways interstate controlled- and other access roads are required. plan Draft Comprehensive identifies The # roads for bike lanes suggested or shoulders.paved Potential# off-road corridors pedestrian to and attention areas need that accommodations (especially within designated Village areas) been have identified. are several and places #There Plan text Comprehensive in in (both the the areas. increases to maps) refer that in bicycle Village and pedestrian accommodations, designated in especially has Kent 6 designated bicycle are designed for Class but routes, #New A riders insufficient to (expert) due shoulders. #Major Plan Thoroughfare and Rural call insufficient of LRTP for remedy shoulders on major corridors, improve safety. to bicycle friendly facilities with design that is compatible with land use use land with compatible is that design States# with to promote “complete facilities street” friendly designsbicycle that promotes pedestrian districts. andquality objectives, including mixed-use distinctions rural characters between located and strategically pedestrian promoting objective by address mentioned to above States # the especially enhance to and bike improvements, developments, in new and should existingwalkability. new to sidewalks Streets connect New and pedestrian or multi-use pathsoff-street in safe a promotes way that crossing for pedestrians and improves opportunities for using multiple modes of travel. Richmond Multimodal Strategic Transportation Plan in March 2015*completed as Richmond an Connects to Appendix than 100*Proposes lane more miles bike bike lanes, lanes, of buffered and cycletracks (barrier-separated bike lanes), including in downtown *Proposes ~35 lane miles of bike/walkbike boulevards) streets (traffic than calmed 30*Proposes linear more miles shared-use of streets, paths/greenways aka *Emphasis bridge improved on crossings completed January 2013completed *Included for recommendations bike lanes and cycletracks in downtown analysis) in-depth city more (pending the of much and throughout approach planning Streets to a Complete and design *Recommends Bike Master Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle Henrico New Kent New Richmond Powhatan Jurisdiction Jurisdiction fig. 4.4. Fig. 4.1: RRTPO Bike-Ped Matrix fig. 4.5. Fig. 4.1: RRTPO Bike-Ped Matrix 239 240 Rail in the Richmond Region
The movement of people and goods by rail provides an efficient, cost effective and environmentally beneficial transportation mode choice for residents and businesses. The Richmond region is traversed by several key rail corridors and is positioned as a vital lynchpin connecting the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor with the Northeast Corridor (NEC), an electrified railway line that runs from Washington, D.C through Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City to Boston. Additionally, the region is served by both of Virginia’s Class I railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern.
The metropolitan transportation planning process can support policies that advocate investments in the rail system and to a lesser degree, also identify projects to be funded with TPO-directed financial resources. While the regional financial resources are not sufficient to support improvements for an entire corridor, the region is capable of supporting spot-improvements with independent utility such as siding extensions, crossovers, signal upgrades or grade-separation of crossings which can improve the performance of the rail system to the benefit of both passenger and freight movements.
This section will summarize statewide rail planning efforts and funding, an introduction to key CSX and Norfolk Southern corridors passing through the region, and higher speed passenger and freight rail capacity improvements contemplated along the East Coast.
241 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan Long-Range Rail Resource Allocation Plan Recommendations (VSRP, 2013) Total Cost Projects by Corridor In 2013, the Virginia Department ($2012) of Rail and Public Transportation I-95/I-64 Transportation Corridor $5,538,326,476 I-95 Passenger Service Capital $287,055,518 (DRPT) completed the Virginia Phase I $194,141,752 Statewide Rail Plan. The purpose Phase II $92,913,766 of this plan was to provide a I-95 Passenger Service Operating $108,063,559 vision for rail transportation in Phase I $17,279,871 Phase II $78,253,593 the Commonwealth of Virginia Phase III $12,530,095 through 2040. The plan outlines Southeast High Speed Rail $3,776,971,620 the current condition of Virginia’s Phase I—Tier II EIS DC2RVA $130,225,119 rail system, challenges facing the Phase II—DC2RVA Improvements $1,656,554,650 Phase III—Hampton Roads $576,994,923 system, and identifies projects Phase IV—Richmond to Raleigh $1,413,196,928 necessary for improvement of the National Gateway $205,789,400 network. A companion document, Phase I $53,076,686 the Resource Allocation plan, Phase II $152,712,714 I-64 Passenger Service Capital $46,637,139 details project selection and Phase I $11,637,139 prioritization, funding and Phase II $35,000,000 implementation schedules. The I-64 Passenger Service Operating $71,509,240 figure lists the $6.9 Billion in Phase I $12,131,823 Phase II $59,377,417 projects contemplated in the VRE $1,042,300,000 statewide plan recommendations Phase I $32,500,000 for rail resource allocation. Phase II $1,009,800,000 I-81 Transportation Corridor $1,142,271,768 According to DRPT’s Statewide Crescent Corridor $628,485,743 Rail Plan, in 2013 Virginia’s Phase I $186,571,700 Phase II $61,800,000 rail system consisted of nearly Phase III $380,114,043 3,400 route miles, most of US 29, 460 & I-81 Passenger Service Capital $505,320,063 which are operated by two Phase I—Lynchburg Service $103,658,630 Class I railroads—the Norfolk Phase II—Extension to Roanoke $128,364,197 Phase III—Extension to Bristol $47,694,234 Southern (2,020 miles) and Phase IV—Two Roundtrips to Lynchburg $91,338,957 CSX (850 miles) and nine Phase V—Two Roundtrips to Roanoke $109,786,726 shortline railroads. The Surface Phase VI—Extension to Richmond $24,477,319 Transportation Board defines US 29, 460 & I-81 Passenger Service Operating $8,465,962 Phase I $2,049,849 Class I national railroads as line- Phase II $6,416,113 haul freight railroads exceeding Route 460 Heartland Transportation Corridor $60,375,000 $433.2 million in 2011 annual Phase I $36,375,000 operating revenue, and Class III Phase II $24,000,000 Port of Virginia $64,618,177 shortline railroads are line-haul Phase I $9,611,806 carriers with annual revenues Phase II $55,006,371 less than $34.7 million in 2011 Shortline Program $119,057,269 revenues. Two of Virginia’s Phase I $82,312,519 Phase II $36,744,750 nine shortlines are primarily Rail in the Richmond Region Total $6,924,648,690 switching railroads serving fig. 6.1. LONG-RANGE RAIL RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS (VSRP, marine terminals and industrial 2013) 242 2 facilities. There are no Class to connect new or expanding for capital improvements bene- II Railroads in Virginia. Two businesses to the freight railroad fiting passenger and freight passenger systems—Amtrak and network. The program supports initiatives. Applications must VRE—provide service over this localities, businesses, or indus- achieve a Benefit-Cost Ratio private freight railroad system. tries seeking access to a common of 1.0 or greater, meaning the Major lines run north-south carrier railroad. Applications are value of public benefits must be and east-west, and important accepted throughout the year. greater than the public funds rail lines converge at key nodes: Rail Preservation Fund invested within an established Norfolk, Richmond, Lynchburg, time period. This fund is typically The Rail Preservation Fund Roanoke, and Alexandria. utilized by Class I railroads, the benefits the shortline railroads, Statewide Rail Funds Port of Virginia, and Virginia which provide the “local” network Railway Express for major capital DRPT’s Rail Division manages and the “last mile” of rail freight investments. grant programs to implement service. It promotes the continu- Intercity Passenger Rail freight and passenger rail initia- ation of rail service by achieving Operating and Capital Fund tives. These funds have evolved Federal Railroad Administration over time and at present help Class 2 track safety standards. It The Intercity Passenger Rail to maintain a competitive rail also promotes development of rail Operating and Capital (IPROC) network serving the Port of transportation support facilities, Fund provides operational Virginia and to divert truck encouraging industrial growth funding for four state-supported traffic from the state’s highways. and promoting truck diversion Amtrak Routes, consisting of six Rail Industrial Access Fund from Virginia’s highways. state-supported Amtrak trains. Rail Enhancement Fund The Passenger Rail Investment The Rail Industrial Access and Improvement Act of 2008 Program promotes truck diver- The Rail Enhancement Fund is required states with Amtrak sion by providing grant assistance a dedicated source of funding Rail in the Richmond Region fig. 6.2. LOCATION OF RECOMMENDED VIRGINIA STATEWIDE RAIL PLAN PROJECTS BY CORRIDOR (VSRP, 2013) 243 services less of than 750 miles every major container port in the principal intermodal train to pay for the routes or cease U.S. This network includes 2,079 system connecting the Port of operation. This fund enables the miles in Virginia along three Virginia to external markets. Commonwealth to continue corridors; the Crescent Corridor, Like the Norfolk Southern those services. It is also the the Heartland Corridor, and the Coal Corridor, the CSX Coal source of funds for passenger rail Coal Corridor. Corridor is the company’s line equipment upgrades and capital of heaviest use, transporting The Crescent Corridor consists improvements. coal from Appalachia through of two north-south lines. Richmond to Peninsula coal The Piedmont line runs from Virginia’s Class I marine terminals. Railroads Alexandria to Danville, and the Shenandoah line runs from Front Corridor Profiles Two of the Nation’s Class I Royal to Bristol and serves the railroads, CSX and Norfolk Virginia Inland Port. Principal The following corridors, and Southern, operate in Virginia. train types on these lines are improvements described, are These railroads own the majority intermodal, general merchan- of utmost significance to rail of freight rail track infrastructure dise, and auto. The Heartland operations and economic compet- in the State. Norfolk Southern Corridor runs through the itiveness in the Commonwealth operates roughly 60% of southern portion of the State of Virginia. Improvements to Virginia’s freight rail track, while from the Hampton Roads to this network result in significant CSX operates about 30%. Both West Virginia. The Heartland gains, both public and private. CSX and Norfolk Southern have Corridor is Norfolk Southern’s Benefits accrue to: been working on system-wide primary intermodal train system • Import and export customers: connecting the Port of Virginia increased capacity and corridor investments to improve decreased transit time. the intermodal connectivity to to Midwest markets. The Coal U.S. mid-west markets. Corridor is the line with the • The Port of Virginia: making heaviest use, carrying unit trains the port more attractive to Both railroads provide major from the Appalachian coalfields ocean carriers by improving east-west and north-south intermodal connectivity to the to the Norfolk Southern Coal U.S. Midwest markets. connections. Typically, tonnage Marine Terminal at Lambert’s that is Virginia-based (moving Point, Norfolk. • The public: removing trucks inbound, outbound, or within CSX from highways improves safety, the State) moves east-west and is lowers maintenance costs, CSX operates a 21,000 route- alleviates congestion, and focused on the Port of Virginia. reduces fuel consumption and mile network serving 23 By tonnage, coal accounts for over greenhouse gas emissions. two thirds of Virginia-based rail states, Washington, DC, the traffic. Rail tonnage that has both Canadian provinces of Ontario an origin and destination outside and Quebec, and 70 ports. The Most importantly, network Virginia (pass-through traffic) Virginia portion of this network improvements cannot be consid- primarily moves north-south. is 1,054 miles. CSX trains in ered in either geographic or the Commonwealth move along proprietary isolation. A network, Norfolk Southern the National Gateway and by its nature, spreads the benefits of improvement throughout the Norfolk Southern operates Coal Corridors. The National Gateway Corridor generally system to many users. Therefore,
Rail in the Richmond Region approximately 20,000 route- enhancements can be leveraged miles in 22 eastern states and the follows I-95 with an extension into proportionally outsized District of Columbia, and serves to Hampton Roads. It is CSX’s 244 gains. For the same reason, investment must be considered National Gateway – providing the Richmond Marine Terminal with great care and foresight. double-stack clearance between and its growing barge service. When opportunities exist, the CSX’s existing intermodal region must be deliberative, but terminal in Chambersburg, Existing Intercity also ready to act. PA and a new intermodal hub Passenger Rail The Heartland Corridor facility in Northwest Ohio - was completed in 2013; Phase The Richmond region is located at The Heartland Corridor is two of the project will provide the juncture of two of the nation’s a public-private partnership for double-stack clearance of most important rail corridors. It between Norfolk Southern and the CSX corridors between is located at the southern end Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Chambersburg and the Port of of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and the federal government to Baltimore and Port of Virginia. (NEC) which runs from Boston create the shortest, fastest route The project is targeted for to Newport News and Lynchburg for double-stacked container completion by 2017 and will via New York, Philadelphia, trains moving between the Port coincide with the expansion Baltimore, Washington D.C., of Virginia and the Midwest. of the Panama Canal, which is and Richmond. Within Virginia, The new routing improves transit expected to bring more traffic the NEC service comprises time between Norfolk and through East Coast ports. over 350 miles, and includes Chicago from four days to three, Regional Impacts of the stops at Alexandria, Franconia/ and is nearly 250 miles shorter Heartland and National Springfield, Woodbridge, than previous routings. Gateway Corridors Quantico, Fredericksburg, Ashland, Richmond (Staples The 2010 opening of the corridor While the Heartland and Mill Road/Greendale Station to double-stacked intermodal National Gateway Corridors are and Main Street Station), traffic was the result of one major undertakings, opportu- Williamsburg and Newport of the most extensive railroad nities for system improvements News, Charlottesville and engineering projects of the last that enhance regional compet- Lynchburg. Investment in century. It is also a model of itiveness are abundant. This passenger rail benefits the the type of public-private part- region’s rail network is the legacy surface transportation system by nerships that can strengthen of four separate railroads whose providing more reliable passenger Virginia’s and the Nation’s trans- confluence was Richmond. The service, increased highway portation infrastructure. result of this fragmentary infra- National Gateway capacity for goods movement, structure today is a network that reduced fuel consumption per The National Gateway is an is heavily congested due to traffic passenger mile, and a reduction innovative public-private volume, a mix of train types, and in highway system impacts. partnership that will create a many conflicting routes. double-stack freight rail corridor Improvements to facilities such between Mid Atlantic sea ports as CSX’s Fulton rail yard and and the Midwest. The improve- “S” line could bring benefits to ment projects are designed to Richmond like those that the increase the vertical clearances Heartland Corridor and National at 61 locations on CSX rail Gateway will generate for the lines in the region to accommo- Port of Virginia and Hampton date intermodal trains carrying Roads. Improved rail access Rail in the Richmond Region double-stack intermodal could have a positive impact on containers. Phase One of the 245 Main Street Station
The Main Street Station, located in downtown Richmond, has been undergoing restoration for multiple years and is a TPO Regional Transportation Priority Project. The project has been divided into three phases. The first phase was completed in December 2003, coinciding with the ending of a 28-year hiatus of having rail service into the City of Richmond’s central business district. Phase two was completed in September 2007 and included fig. 6.3. MAIN STREET STATION FUTURE EXTERIOR TRAIN SHED the purchase of the remainder of • New York-Washington-Raleigh- high-speed rail corridors nation- the Main Street Station property Jacksonville (Silver Meteor/ and the rehabilitation of the head Silver Star/Palmetto service) wide. The SEHSR corridor house. – This Amtrak route includes was first designated by the U.S. 175 miles in Virginia, with Department of Transportation in The two phases, with a total stops at Alexandria, Quantico, 1992, and ran from Washington investment of $39.3 million, Fredericksburg, Richmond, and Petersburg. Three southbound D.C. to Charlotte, N.C. via were funded primarily by federal and three northbound trains Richmond and Raleigh, N.C. funds with other funding by the operate each day along this Its original designation was City and $2 million in RRTPO route, resulting in 21 weekly extended to include South CMAQ allocations. The devel- northbound and 21 weekly southbound trips. Carolina, Georgia and Florida. opment schedule for Phase 3 is The SEHSR corridor has also targeted for completion in 2017 • New York-Washington-Raleigh- been extended to include a and includes the restoration of Charlotte (Carolinian service) link between Richmond and the train shed, development of – The Carolinian service traverses 175 miles in Virginia, Hampton Roads. The status of the seaboard buildings, and other with stops in Alexandria, SEHSR corridor improvements improvements in support of the Quantico, Fredericksburg, and higher speed rail studies is proposed Broad Street Bus Rapid Richmond, and Petersburg. described in the next section. Transit (BRT) project. One train trip is made daily in the northbound and Southeast High Speed Rail southbound directions. Richmond area residents are The Southeast High Speed Rail served by three primary north- Corridor (SEHSR) is a passenger south routes operated by Amtrak: The Richmond region is also rail project to extend high-speed • Boston-New York-Washington- located at the northern end of passenger rail services from Richmond-Norfolk (Northeast Regional service) – this Amtrak the Southeast High Speed Rail Washington, D.C. south through route includes five northbound (SEHSR) Corridor; one of the Richmond to Petersburg with a and five southbound trains five original national corridors spur to Norfolk (Hampton Roads operating each day along this designated under the Intermodal region) and to Raleigh, Durham, route allowing for travel from Rail in the Richmond Region Central Virginia to points along Surface Transportation Greensboro and Charlotte the Northeast Corridor. Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) in North Carolina, through 246 which authorized a program of Greenville, South Carolina, multiple project alternatives, railway line that runs from and is generally phased into two Boston through New York City, or more rounds – or “tiers” – of Philadelphia, and Baltimore environmental review. In Tier I, to Washington, D.C., and the the EIS analyzes a project on a greater SEHSR corridor. Each broad scale, considering general segment comprising the overall terminating in Atlanta. Virginia environmental conditions and NEC and SEHSR system is at DRPT has been working with levels of impact with little to no various stages in the NEPA/ North Carolina, South Carolina, site-specific detail. In Tier II, the EIS process as visualized in the and Georgia to advance this EIS examines project alternatives following map (Conceptual project. in greater detail, and impacts are Location of NEC and SEHSR In October 2010, Virginia addressed with potential miti- Corridors under Study) and received $44.3 million in federal gation measures. Upon approval described below: • NEC – The Northeast Corridor, high speed rail funds to complete of Tier II documentation, the decision on a preferred alterna- the most heavily traveled rail the Tier I EIS for the portion corridor in the U.S., is under of SEHSR between Richmond tive leads to an official Record study as part of the NEC and Washington, D.C. With of Decision (ROD) which ulti- FUTURE Tier I EIS. The FRA launched NEC FUTURE in these funds, the DC2RVA mately allows for permitting, final design, right-of-way acqui- February 2012 to determine Tier II Environmental Impact a long-term vision and Statement (EIS) was initiated sition and construction to move investment program for the in the fall of 2014 by DRPT. forward. NEC, in addition to meeting NEPA requirements. The Tier I The study will analyze specific The DC2RVA segment of EIS and Vision are expected for rail infrastructure improve- the SEHSR corridor is a vital completion in 2016. ment alternatives and service lynchpin between the Northeast upgrades intended to improve Corridor (NEC), an electrified the travel time, service frequency, and on-time performance of passenger trains operating between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. The DC2RVA corridor is one component of a broader east coast rail system, extending from Atlanta to Boston, undergoing rail improve- ment studies endorsed by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the EIS describes the potential impacts of proposed activities or projects on the natural and physical environ- Rail in the Richmond Region ment. The EIS is a tool for decision-making which evaluates fig. 6.4. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR AND SOUTHEAST HIGH-SPEED RAIL 247 • DC2RVA – The Washington, • Raleigh to Charlotte – The D.C. to Richmond segment was Raleigh to Charlotte segment initially studied and proceeded of SEHSR has advanced through the Tier I EIS process through Tier II and is now as part of the October 2002 under construction. The rail Record of Decision (ROD) for improvements along this the entire Washington, D.C. segment were largely funded to Charlotte SEHSR corridor. through federal stimulus DRPT has begun work on money from the American the Tier II EIS focused on the Recovery and Reinvestment DC2RVA segment, with a final Act (ARRA). document anticipated in 2017. • Charlotte to Atlanta – The • Richmond to Raleigh – The Charlotte to Atlanta segment Richmond to Raleigh segment is an extension of SEHSR, also proceeded through Tier building on the prior study I as part of the October 2002 of the Washington, D.C. to ROD for the Washington, D.C. Charlotte corridor. The Tier I to Charlotte corridor. The EIS for Charlotte to Atlanta Draft Tier II EIS for Richmond is currently underway and is to Raleigh was completed anticipated for completion in in 2010, at which point FRA, 2017. NCDOT and Virginia DRPT undertook an extensive public engagement and review process. The Final Tier II EIS Next Steps was recently completed and signed by FRA in September As of publication of plan2040, 2015, with a Record of Decision the Tier II EIS document and expected in 2016. Record of Decision for the • Richmond to Hampton Roads DC2RVA segment of SEHSR – The Richmond to Hampton had yet to be finalized. Upon Roads spur of SEHSR was adoption by FRA, the RRTPO studied in a separate Tier I EIS will be in position to consider process from the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor. possible investments in projects In 2010, the Commonwealth of independent utility to advance Transportation Board (CTB) implementation of this project. selected a preferred alternative for enhanced passenger rail service between the two regions. The preferred alternative addressed both Peninsula service between Richmond and Newport News as well as Southside service between Richmond and Norfolk. The Final Tier I EIS was approved by FRA in August 2012, and approval of the Record of Decision followed in December 2012. Rail in the Richmond Region
248 Status Check on National Rail Plan and Policies In 2008, Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) which was subsequently signed into law. PRIIA directed the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to “Develop a long-range national rail plan… to promote an integrated, cohesive, efficient, and optimized national rail system for the movement of goods and people.” As of 2016, the FRA has yet to formally adopt a National Rail Plan, however, a number of building block documents have been released in subsequent years; most notably the National Rail Plan: Progress Report released in September 2010. FRA’s vision for a national rail program as outlined in the progress report, is to develop tiered passenger rail corridors that take into account different markets and geographic contexts: Core Express Corridors: These routes would connect large urban areas up to 500 miles apart with 2-3 hour travel times and train speeds between 125 and 250 mph. Service will be frequent and will operate on electrified, dedicated track that is publicly owned. Based on their operation in and between large, dense metropolitan regions, the Core Express corridors will form the “backbone” of the national passenger rail system. Regional Corridors: This network would connect mid-sized urban areas, and smaller communities in between, with convenient, frequent 90-125 mph service on a mix of dedicated and shared track. In some areas, these corridors could connect to Core Express corridors, with many potential passenger services operating over both the Core Express and Regional routes. Emerging/Feeder Routes: Emerging routes would connect regional urban areas at speeds up to 90 mph on shared track. In some areas, the Emerging/Feeder routes could connect to the Core Express or Regional corridors, allowing residents of these smaller or more distant areas to have efficient access to the national system. Since the delivery of the Preliminary Plan, the FRA has begun official work on the NRP. The process commenced with FRA led public outreach events and meetings with expert stakeholders to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issues, and develop strategies to leverage strengths of the current system. The next steps include identifying regions of the country where Core Express, Regional, and Emerging/Feeder corridors could be feasible; estimating investments to develop the passenger rail network and improve freight rail intermodal corridors; and evaluating the return on investment, including public benefits, from system investments. Finally, there will be a comprehensive strategy to implement the Plan with legislative, policy, and administrative recommendations. Already, however, the Richmond region has been included in the federally designated Southeast High- Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor. The SEHSR Corridor consists of a number of rail segments located in South Atlantic states with through service to and from the Northeast Corridor. The majority of HSR development thus far has been focused on the portion of the Corridor from Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, N.C. The SEHSR Corridor will include operations at top speeds of 110 mph, meaning that it will likely be defined as a Regional Corridor in the NRP. Recently, Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS), critical components to project development, were issued for the Richmond to Hampton Roads and Richmond to Raleigh sections of the corridor. Rail in the Richmond Region
249 250 Freight & Intermodal Systems
The Richmond region’s freight transportation system is an interconnected, complex network of highways, local roads, navigable waterways, and rail lines linked to each other through hubs at the Richmond Marine Terminal, Richmond International Airport, major railyards, and distribution and warehousing facilities spread throughout the region. This system accommodates the movement of raw materials and finished products from the entire spectrum of agricultural, industrial, retail, and service sectors of the regional economy. More than 85,000 people in the Richmond region are employed in freight intensive industries, including over 20,000 people employed directly in the transportation and warehousing sector. Collectively, the state’s multimodal freight network and freight intensive industries support jobs throughout the Commonwealth.
The effective incorporation of freight transportation considerations into the metropolitan transportation planning process is extremely important because the freight system is a crucial contributor to the regional economy and quality of life. In the past, regional engagement in directing policy or projects to benefit the movement of freight was left primarily to the private sector; this is not the case today. Recognizing the need to reassess our competitive market position and develop strategies to improve intermodal connections, the RRTPO undertook a regional planning effort in conjunction with Tri- Cities MPO. The study, “Richmond/Tri-Cities Regional Intermodal Strategies” (study), was accepted by the RRTPO on May 10, 2010. Since 2010, the RRTPO has continued to engage in work efforts advancing the consideration of freight in the metropolitan transportation planning process, including engagement through stakeholder members of the Richmond’s Future Logistics Roundtable.
The freight transportation system is important to consider in long-range planning because of both its positive and negative contributions to communities. The metropolitan planning process must not only consider the benefits, but also the negative externalities of freight movements, including consideration of the health impacts of air pollution, noise and vibration impacts of heavy trucks and trains, and the potential for disproportionate impacts on low-income and/or minority communities.
251 Graphic source: Beyond Traffic 2045, USDOT
An efficient transportationstores across the Commonwealth trucks became an important mode system is a necessary condition and around the nation. The for moving freight around the for economic competitiveness Commonwealth’s ability to United States. Early US Routes and for realizing the full economic compete in global markets, and like Route 1 and 301 as well as potential of the region. On to meet the needs and expecta- Route 60 and 360 were forbearers the other hand, freight – along tions of consumers and industry, of the interstate system that with the rest of transportation depends on a robust multimodal were important truck lines. The sector – produces many negative freight transportation system. advent of the Interstate system externalities, which, in turn, can did not leave the Richmond area generate community opposition The Richmond area has a long behind, as Interstates 95, 64 and to freight activities . The metro- history of providing intermodal 85 converge in the Richmond politan transportation planning services to the region and to region. process must seek to balance points further west in Central freight benefits and drawbacks. Virginia. In its early history, the Given the Richmond region’s James River was used as a major natural locational advantages Freight is ubiquitous, it is all shipping route to bring products for goods movement, it will be around us, but often unseen. The and raw materials to markets imperative that the transporta- freight system is a multimodal along the Eastern Seaboard tion system be maintained and engine that drives our economy. and to world markets across the adequately adjust to meet future Access for goods moved by trucks, Atlantic. As time progressed, needs. With the rise of online trains, and barges from and to our rail movement became a primary shopping and next-day delivery, coastal ports in Hampton Roads means of moving freight and the planning and investment provides a critical gateway to the helped shape the country’s urban in infrastructure and vehicles global economy. Imports arrive centers. Remnants of the large (trains, trucks and vessels) that in Virginia’s deepwater ports scale rail facilities can still be make the freight transportation on large container ships and are seen around the area, as well as system work can be easily taken transferred to trucks, trains, and in the major rail lines which are for granted.. But, today, the barges which take the cargo to in active use. With the invention freight system is strained. The intermodal transfer centers and, and commercial application of roads, and railways along the from there, to warehouses and the internal combustion engine, eastern seaboard are becoming Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight Chmurra JobsEQ Industry Snapshot for Richmond PDC as of Q4 2015, includes employment by two-digit NAICS codes 11-Agriculture, 21-Mining, 31-Manufacturing, 42-Wholesale Trade, and 48-Transportation/Warehousing 252 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 739, Freight Trip Generation and Land Use (2012) increasingly congested, and the Intermodal Freight Explained Richmond Region Freight continued performance of ports Intermodal freight is defined as Infrastructure Assets - and inland waterways will depend the movement of containerized Network and Hubs on routine dredging and updates cargo over air, land or water Rail to aging facilities and equip- through the use of different Network ment. Despite these challenges, modes of transportation (aircraft, there are opportunities through truck, rail, barges, ships, etc.) Two major railroad companies the metropolitan transportation capable of handling containers. have operations and tracks planning process to identify, in the Richmond area: CSX In general, goods that are high prioritize and fund projects to Corporation and Norfolk value or perishable (i.e. time improve the performance of the Southern Corporation. They sensitive) are more likely to freight system. account for the majority of the move by faster modes, while freight movement in the region; This section will examine various goods that are lower value or complimenting CSX and Norfolk aspects of transporting freight cost sensitive are more likely Southern is the Old Buckingham within and through the region: to move by slower modes. For Branch rail line which primarily firstly, a look at the existing example, electronic equipment carries coal. Generally, CSX network and hub facilities for rail, for manufacturing operations operations are intended to serve truck, waterborne, and air freight would likely be shipped by air, north-south corridors while to and from the Richmond whereas bulk commodity grains Norfolk-Southern services region; secondly, an analysis commonly travel by rail. This east-west corridors within our of commodity flows data; and plays a major role why in many region. CSX also maintains finally the chapter will conclude cases mode shift is not likely to important rail sidings and spurs with the trends and policies that occur, because for high value/ at Richmond International will shape the future of freight time sensitive goods the speed, Airport and the Richmond transportation planning in the reliability, and total travel time Marine Terminal on Deepwater Richmond region. of transportation are highly Terminal Railroad. important to manufacturers who are shipping and/or retailers who are receiving the goods. Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight
Graphic Source: National Freight Strategic Plan, USDOT 253 Hubs and as a staging area before trains dependent upon the function- are sent to Acca Yard for coordi- ality of this network of corridors. CSX maintains Acca Yard as their nation into the freight movement primary facility with approxi- queues. Fulton Yard is not served What types of trucks mately 20 tracks and provides by Norfolk Southern. Finally, the travel on the Richmond such freight services as classifi- proximity to a historic district cation, staging, bulk transfer, rail Region’s roadways? in the City of Richmond may Combination Truck Carrying car maintenance and industrial have additional negative impacts. switching. Acca Yard is physi- Intermodal Shipping There are 13 available tracks in Containers cally constrained for expansion Fulton Yard. purposes. The costs to obtain Typical Truck Trip Generators: the necessary land for expansion Note: For additional informa- Intermodal facilities such as are prohibitively expensive. In tion on rail investment within ocean ports, rail terminals, and addition, the yard is one of the the region, see the Rail in the inland ports most congested facilities on Richmond Region section of the the east coast and serves CSX Technical Document. Typical Truck Trip Attractors: Railroad and Amtrak. Another Trucking Intermodal facilities such as drawback to the site is that the ocean ports, rail terminals, and Network other major rail company in inland ports; Manufacturing the region, Norfolk-Southern, Although freight is a multi- facilities; Warehousing and does not operate at this facility. modal system – trucking is the Distribution facilities Approximately 20 tracks are lifeblood of goods movement available within the Acca Yard. in the Richmond region and The yard must also accommodate throughout the United States. It Amtrak passenger trains, which is legal for heavy duty and light- pass through the yard every day, weight delivery trucks to travel complicating yard activity in on nearly every roadway in the order to meet scheduled train region, however, the most critical service. Acca Yard is on the corridors for freight movement federally designated Southeast have been designated regional High Speed Rail Corridor which multimodal freight network. will also require accommodating The regional multimodal freight additional passenger rail traffic. network takes into account USDOT and VDOT designated CSX also maintains Fulton networks of national and state- Yard with 13 tracks with staging wide significance, in addition to being its primary function, and regionally designated corridors Collier Yard with 13 tracks and Combination Truck with from the 2010 “Richmond/ limited classification and storage Semi-Trailer Tri-Cities Regional Intermodal services as well as bulk transfer, Strategies”. industrial switching, and staging. Typical Truck Trip Generators: Manufacturing facilities; Fulton Yard is smaller than Acca The combined network of the Warehousing and Distribution Yard and is limited to support “Richmond MSA Regional facilities facilities, staging, and limited Multimodal Freight Network” Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight industrial switching. The yard is is shown on Map 5.1; freight used by CSX for train switching 254 movement within the region is Typical Truck Trip Attractors: Typical Truck Trip Attractors: Warehousing and Distribution Intermodal and roll-on/roll-off facilities; Retail businesses such (ro-ro) facilities such as ocean as grocery stores ports, rail terminals, and inland ports; Retail businesses such as automotive dealers
Combination Truck with Dry Bulk or Liquid Bulk Trailer Dump and Cement Trucks
Typical Truck Trip Generators: Typical Truck Trip Generators: Grain elevators and other agri- Raw material extraction sites; cultural facilities; Raw material Construction or demolition sites extraction sites; large-scale construction or demolition sites Typical Truck Trip Attractors: Construction or demolition Typical Truck Trip Attractors: sites; Landfills Grain elevators and other agri- cultural facilities; Intermodal facilities such as ocean ports, rail terminals, and inland ports; large-scale construction or demolition sites; Manufacturing facilities; Landfills
Delivery Vans
Typical Truck Trip Generators: Mail sorting and transfer facili- ties; Commercial and residential areas Combination Truck with Auto-Rack or Flatbed Cargo Typical Truck Trip Attractors: Mail sorting and transfer facili- Typical Truck Trip Generators: ties; Commercial and residential Intermodal and roll-on/roll-off areas (ro-ro) facilities such as ocean ports, rail terminals, and inland ports; Manufacturing facilities; Retail businesses such as auto- Systems & Intermodal Freight motive dealers Photo credits: Virginia Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, Virginia Multimodal Freight Plan, Appendix C, Figs. 5-1 to 5.6 255 Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight
map 5.24. multimodal freight network 256 Hubs Shipping and Barge network, especially in Western Network Europe where they are used The hubs of trucking activity are extensively for goods movement. dispersed throughout the region The vast global maritime network in areas of freight intensive land consists of key shipping lanes Hubs uses. The RRTPO has begun an traversing oceans, seas and inland Richmond Marine Terminal effort to map and analyze freight waterways. Maritime transporta- intensive land use areas which will tion is the most effective mode to The Richmond Marine Terminal be used to inform the plan2045 move large quantities of cargo over is strategically located to play a document and to validate and long distances, facilitating inter- major role in the future economic improve the quality of outputs national trade. The Richmond development for central Virginia from the truck component of the region is linked to global markets by virtue of its location and regional travel demand model. through shipments to and from capability to provide a link to Hubs of freight activity include the Port of Virginia terminals domestic and international but are not limited to industrial in Hampton Roads. Shipments markets and the global economy. facilities, mining operations, to and from the Port of Virginia The Richmond Marine Terminal, agricultural processing facilities, to/from Asian markets come via under operations by the Port of warehousing and distribution the Panama and Suez Canals and Virginia, currently has through centers, intermodal facilities, and from European markets via the bills of lading with 9 interna- retail centers. Atlantic Ocean. Inland water- tional carriers; providing the ways, such as the James River advantage for goods bound for serving Richmond, are critical Richmond to forgo customs components of the maritime screening in POV’s terminals in Hampton Roads. Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight fig. 5.1. richmond marine terminal container volumes 257 The 121-acre facility is a Marine Terminal has experi- high value freight or just-in- domestic and international enced year over year growth in time deliveries, and is generally multimodal freight and distribu- container volumes since the Port considered a niche segment of tion center located on the James of Virginia’s 2013 fiscal reporting global goods movement. River, approximately 100 miles year. from Cape Henry serving water- Hubs Other Terminals borne, rail and truck shippers Four airports (Richmond throughout the Mid-Atlantic While the Richmond Marine International Airport, States. The facility has the Terminal is the largest public Chesterfield County Airport, capacity to absorb significantly port in the region and handles Hanover County Municipal more cargo and the area outside the vast majority of waterborne Airport, and New Kent County of the gate is uniquely situated freight, there are several other Airport) serve the Richmond to be redeveloped with manu- marine oil and bulk terminals in region. Only Richmond facturing, distribution and the region. These include: International Airport provides warehouse facilities that will • Shirley Plantation - Weanack scheduled commercial airline benefit from the proximity to Land Limited Partners service and major air cargo the port and rail. The Port of 501 Shirley Plantation Road, Charles City, VA operations. The other airports Richmond offers significant support general aviation activi- logistical advantages with the • Kinder Morgan Energy Partners ties of various levels. Each of the relatively low congestion on the 3302 Deepwater Terminal airports is described below. highway transportation system Road, Richmond, VA Richmond International Airport and with its excellent location • Vulcan Materials along I-95 with easy access to 1300 Willis Road, Richmond, VA The Richmond International I-64, I-85, I-295 and US 460 and Airport (RIC) serves a 41-county Foreign Trade Zone #207. Rail • IMTT Richmond 5500 Old Osborne Turnpike, area throughout eastern and unloading and distribution capa- Richmond, VA central Virginia and has expe- bilities for shippers are provided rienced significant growth in • Flint Hills Resources by CSX over Deepwater Terminal demand for both commercial Rail and by Norfolk Southern via 4110 Deepwater Terminal Road, Richmond, VA passenger service and air cargo local switch. activity. RIC is located on 2,600 • Simsmetal America acres in eastern Henrico County, Beginning in late-2008, a 3220 Deepwater Terminal Road, container-on-barge service began Richmond, VA seven miles east of downtown operating between the Richmond Richmond. It is owned and Marine Terminal and the Port of • E.I. DuPont Drewry’s Bluff operated by the Capital Region 1201 Bellwood Road, Richmond, Airport Commission (CRAC) Virginia terminals in Hampton VA Roads. This service provides an a political subdivision of the alternative to trucking imports Commonwealth of Virginia. bound for regional distribu- Air CRAC member jurisdictions tion or exports from the region are the City of Richmond, to international markets. The Network and Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico Counties. The service mitigates highway system Air routes are practically unlim- Commission’s enabling legis- impacts associated with goods ited and provide long distance
Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight lation allows membership movement by shifting individual mobility and flexibility for the to the counties of Charles containers from truck to barge. movement of people and goods. City, Goochland, New Kent, 258 As seen in Fig. 5.1, the Richmond Air transportation accommodates Powhatan, and the Town of airport grow substantially in Hanover County Municipal Ashland. recent years. There is opportunity Airport and capacity for increased air In the last decade, RIC cargo movements at RIC. Also, The Hanover County Municipal completed major elements of the recent construction of a new Airport opened in 1971 and is an historic capital improvement access road has opened up new strategically located on over 200 program. A new terminal, development sites with access to acres of land east of I-95, just dedicated in 2007 and featuring runways and cargo areas. north of the I-295 interchange separate arrival and departure between the Atlee and Lewistown levels, has a design capacity of Chesterfield County Airport Road I-95 exits. It is adjacent to more than six million enplaned the Hanover Industrial Airpark passengers per year. Additional Chesterfield County Airport with over 550 businesses. As part projects completed include the is a general aviation airport of the National Transportation addition of 10 new airline gates, that provides facilities for System, the airport provides the construction of a two-level privately-owned aircraft used general aviation services to terminal curbside roadway, the for personal and business activ- both corporate businesses, renovation of existing terminal ities. It is also designated as a small package operators and the facilities, the construction of a reliever airport to Richmond recreational pilot. The airport new FAA air traffic control tower International Airport and is serves small single engine and nearly three times taller than its designated as a C-II facility, multi-engine aircraft, as well predecessor, a new central utility one which can handle airplane as light business jets, and is plant, expanded security facilities, approach speeds of 121 to 140 designed to accommodate up to and additional parking facilities, knots and plane wingspans of 49 Category II Aircraft. It has a full including garages for public and to 78 feet. service fixed base operator that rental car use. Construction The airport is owned by provides air taxi/ charter service was completed in 2010 for the Chesterfield County and operates as well as flight instruction and Airport Drive creating a four- as a department within the aircraft maintenance. lane divided roadway from county. The airport encompasses The airport has been identi- Clarkson Road to Charles City 586 acres with an additional Road; in 2011 a connector fied by the Federal Aviation 28.5 acres of aviation easements. Administration National Plan between Charles City Road and The airport has a 5,500-foot x the Pocahontas Parkway was of Integrated Airport Systems 100-foot runway with a full- (NPIAS) as a vital link to open providing direct access to length parallel taxiway. Apron RIC from State Route 895. air service in the Richmond space is approximately 41,500 Metropolitan area. As such, the Air cargo activity has been rela- square yards with a total of 97 airport has been designated as tively stable, reporting total cargo paved tie-downs. There are an air carrier reliever airport to in the range 90 million pounds hangars for aircraft storage and Richmond International Airport per year. RIC has 100,000 a sophisticated lighting system (RIC) in both the National square feet of warehouse/office for nighttime flights. The airport System and the Virginia Air area and utilizes 1 million square has facilities for both major and Transportation System. The feet of ramp area. Due to its minor aircraft repair, fuel services airport has a 5,400-foot x mid-Atlantic location along and has an airplane base of 105 100-foot asphalt runway, lighting major north-south flyways and aircraft. facilities, and corporate hangars Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight non-congested airspace, RIC has as well as over 50 individual also seen its role as a diversion hangers with an additional 50 259 plus aircraft tie-down spaces. Full in national and global logistics • Explore approaches to assemble and prepare land for service fueling is available with patterns, and the evolution of the economic development both JET A and Avgas. There are region’s industry structure. approximately 125 aircraft based • Market the region’s logistics In 2012, $55 billion of freight assets and promote the at the airport. was transported into, within and opportunities they present New Kent County Airport from the Richmond region. The to our region’s economic development efforts growth in freight values in the Constructed in 1955, the New Richmond region to the year • Identify best practices from Kent County Airport is owned 2040 will be tied to consumption other logistics communities and operated by the county. The patterns, changes in national and airport sits on 130 acres with an global logistics and the evolution Next Steps: Freight additional 63 acres of easements. of the region’s industry structure. The airport is included in both Freight Stakeholder Planning into the Future the National Plan of Integrated Engagement Trends Airport Systems (NPIAS) and the Virginia Air Transportation With the goal of growing the The USDOT recently adopted a System (VATS). Richmond region as a frieght 30-year framework for transpor- and logistics hub, the think tation planning into the future The airport has one recently reha- tank Richmond’s Future assem- known as Beyond Traffic 2045. bilitated 3,600-foot x 75-foot bled a group of experts in This report analyzed the latest runway with adjacent parallel taxi goods movement and freight data and trends shaping trans- way serving both recreational and intensive industry. This group portation to frame policy choices corporate operations. There are of government and private for the future – including trends 44 tie-downs, 46 T-hangar units sector representatives from and choices for freight: How will and one maintenance hangar both the Richmond and Crater we move things? How to reduce for minor repairs. Under the PDC regions convened as the freight chokepoints that drive up Airport Reference Codes, New Richmond Future’s Logistics the cost of doing business? Kent County Airport is consid- Roundtable. The followingBeyond Traffic 2045 highlighted ered a general aviation B-1 small “Recommended Steps to aircraft airport. It is appropriate the following freight trends: Capitalize on the Logistics • By 2045, freight volume will for airplanes with approach Assets of the Richmond and increase 45 percent speeds of 91 to 120 knots with Crater Regions” were adopted in wing spans less than 48 feet. • Online shopping is driving up a white paper by the Richmond’s demand for small package Analysis of Commodity Future Logisticis Roundtable. home delivery, which could Flows in Richmond • Develop an inventory of soon substitute for many logistics assets in the household shopping trips Region Richmond/Crater Regions • International trade balances, In 2012, 51 million tons of • Establish a long-term due in part to low US energy arrangement between the Port freight was transported into, costs, could shift from imports of Richmond (now known as toward exports, but overall within and from the Richmond Richmond Marine Terminal) globalization will increase both, region. The amount of growth of and the Virginia Port Authority straining ports and border freight volumes in the Richmond crossings • Develop a Master Plan for region to the year 2040 will be Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight the area around the Port of tied to overall population and Richmond Beyond Traffic 2045 notes that 260 employment growth, changes our increasingly urbanized population in the United States final destinations, which is often limited improvements to trans- will pose challenges for “first the least efficient portion of the portation infrastructure. For mile” and “last mile” freight supply chain for most goods. example, new technologies allow movements. It is anticipated that Innovations companies to more accurately freight demand will be concen- determine freight routes, travel Beyond Traffic 2045 also high- trated in the large metropolitan times and infrastructure capacity lights the key innovations in areas where America’s population in real-time. technology as information and is growing the fastest. The report communications technology notes that increasing freight As discussed in Transportation are increasingly applied to demand in densely populated Innovations, the emergence of optimize global supply chains. areas will complicate “first mile” automated vehicles will likely New technologies and business movement of goods out of ports first impact freight - as fully and practices are decreasing logistics and “last mile” movement of partially self-driving trucks, ships, and transportation costs, and goods from freight hubs to their and planes begin to disrupt the increasing reliability in spite of industry. For tractor-trailer semis,
2012 2040 Tons of Freight (by Percentage) Into Region - Richmond as Destination 26,265,120 68,127,972 61% From Region - Richmond as Origin 19,767,922 72,651,659 73% Within Region 5,266,009 17,301,200 70% Total Freight 51,299,051 158,080,831 68% 2012 2040 Value of Freight (by Percentage) Into Region - Richmond as Destination $ 27,753,700,717 $ 66,178,700,562 58% From Region - Richmond as Origin $ 24,040,591,399 $ 87,362,084,321 72%
Within Region $ 3,632,165,075 $ 11,952,904,653 70% Systems & Intermodal Freight Total Freight $ 55,426,457,190 $ 165,493,689,536 67% fig. 5.2. transsearch freight commodity flows by tons and value for richmond pdc region in 2012 261 fig. 5.3. richmond regional freight value-add supply chain
sensor technologies that allow for highly automated, reducing funding opportunities for freight vehicle-to-vehicle communica- reliance on human operators. infrastructure. tions between trucks could allow Policy for trucks to travel more closely With the FAST Act, Congress With passage of a new five-year has recognized that investments together. Improved fuel efficiency surface transportation bill, Fixing and lane mile capacity could in freight infrastructure are America’s Surface Transportation result from adoption of ‘truck crucial to stitching together (FAST) Act – Congress has platooning’ or ‘truck train’ prac- global supply chain networks brokered a long-term agree- tices. Automation technology with local industries and ment to continue addressing the is already being adopted by regional economies. Whether nation’s infrastructure challenges. ports. At major container ports, by improving connections to The bill continues funding for a including Virginia International ports or relieving congestion at range of highway, rail and transit Gateway (VIG) in Portsmouth, highway bottlenecks, transporta- programs, however, a major VA, the process of transferring tion investments play a key role in achievement of the bill centers containers from ships to docks, facilitating interstate commerce Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight on new planning provisions and trucks, and trains is becoming and goods movement. 262 Beyond Traffic 2045, USDOT, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Draft_Beyond_Traffic_Framework.pdf Prior to the FAST Act, federal nationally and regionally signifi- locality project applicants, and transportation spending cant freight and highway projects. evaluate opportunities for the advanced on projects without Eligible applicants include RRTPO to serve as applicant for a coordinated national freight localities, metropolitan planning projects of regional significance. strategy or investment program. organizations (MPOs), port The FAST Act addresses this authorities, and state agencies. 2. The ASTF Act launches shortcoming by initiating the Eligible projects include freight a new $6.3 billion (over 5 following freight provisions corridors of national significance, years) freight formula program, of importance to the RRTPO roadways or railways connections aiming to target investments on metropolitan transportation to major intermodal centers, and a newly-designated ‘National planning process: port-related capital expenditures. Highway Freight Network’ and other critical urban and 1. The ASTF Act estab- Future RRTPO planning rural freight corridors. Specific lishes the ‘Nationally Significant efforts should identify unfunded program guidance is forth- Freight and Highway Projects’ projects in the Richmond region coming, however, a key provision (NSFHP) program, which that may be eligible to compete encourages that MPOs work will direct $4.5 billion (over 5 for NSFHP funding, provide with state DOTs to desig- years) in competitive grants to technical assistance to potential nate ‘Critical Urban Freight Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight fig. 5.4. Transportattion and the economy (beyond traffic 2045, usdot) 263 Corridors’. Upon MPO desig- stage for continued efforts by the the region’s freight transpor- nation, ‘Critical Urban Freight RRTPO to engage in strategic tation system. These goals can Corridors’ meeting all program regional freight planning and only be accomplished, however, requirements would become project programming. if stakeholders in the region eligible for program funding. champion meaningful projects With freight growth, it will that meet the criteria specified in Future RRTPO planning tasks be important for the region the FAST Act. should aim to systematically to balance regional economic identify and designate ‘Critical benefits with potential negative Urban Freight Corridors’ based externalities by applying mitiga- on guidance received from tion strategies. Without effective VDOT and FHWA. The desig- planning and policies, growing nation of additional ‘Critical freight volumes could impact Urban Freight Corridors’ is a air quality, health and quality required step for projects not on of life in neighborhoods along the ‘National Highway Freight freight corridors. Compared to Network’ to become eligible for passenger vehicles, heavy trucks funding under this program. are known to emit large amounts of air pollutants – including 3. The ASTF Act requires hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. that US DOT and state DOTs While trucks have made great adopt and continually update strides in reducing emissions, freight strategic plan documents. the average diesel-fueled heavy Additionally, the bill encourages truck emits more than twice as state DOTs to establish and many hydrocarbons per mile engage with standing Freight and more than 15 times as many Advisory Committees. nitrous oxides as the average The RRTPO will continue passenger car . These emissions coordinating with US DOT can impact human health, partic- and VDOT on freight strategic ularly in neighborhoods adjacent planning efforts, provide input/ to heavily trafficked freight comments on national and state corridors. freight plan documents, and The metropolitan transportation evaluate opportunities to partici- planning process provides signif- pate in the state Freight Advisory icant opportunity to improve Committee. the efficiency, safety and envi- Overall, the new freight provi- ronmental impact of freight sions of the FAST Act take movement in the Richmond steps toward establishing a region. For the first time, more comprehensive national Congress has provided dedicated freight policy, strategic plan, funding for freight infrastruc- and network. These directives, ture. The FAST Act will provide the region new opportunities to
Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight along with associated sources of funding for projects, set the compete for funding to enhance 264 Beyond Traffic 2045, USDOT, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Draft_Beyond_Traffic_Framework.pdf this page intentionally left blank Freight & Intermodal Systems & Intermodal Freight
265 266 Congestion Management
Background and Methodology
The Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RRTPO) is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Richmond region and required to maintain a Congestion Management Process (CMP) as an integral part of the planning process. A CMP provides performance measures and congestion mitigation strategies that align with the goals and objectives of the MTP and are programmed in the TIP. The CMP, as an ongoing systematic process, provides for the collection of up-to-date information concerning the transportation system’s performance and provides alternative strategies for congestion management which meet state and local needs. The CMP applies these strategies to capacity increasing projects and improvements and transitions them into the funding and implementation stages for major corridors identified in the CMP roadway network.
Federal regulations require that a CMP be in place in all Transportation Management Areas (TMAs), which are urban areas over 200,000 in population. The CMP is to be implemented as a continuous part of the metropolitan planning process, which includes the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Utilizing various sources of data and the analysis of trends and conditions, the CMP addresses regional congestion issues by monitoring the region’s roadway network, identifying congested corridors, and developing strategies and recommendations to alleviate congestion on the roadway network.
267 The process for incorporating network specific performance often treated as a stand-alone congestion issues into the measures. The Urban Mobility data analysis exercise or a report planning process is defined by Scorecard produced by the Texas on congestion. The CMP is the following steps: Transportation Institute (TTI) intended as an on-going and will be used in the analysis evolving process, fully integrated 1. Develop regional objectives of performance measures at a into the metropolitan trans- 2. Define the CMP network regional level and will be used portation planning process and as a comparison to peer regions which continually addresses the 3.Develop multimodal perfor- across the country. A Potential results of performance measures, mance measures for Safety (PSI) score is the concerns of the region and/or 4. Collect data/monitor system number of serious or fatal crashes community, new objectives and performance minus the predicted rate for that goals of the TPO, and up-to- type/volume roadway, and PSI date information on congestion 5. Analyze congestion problems scores developed by the HSIP issues. and needs staff of the Traffic Engineering Division of VDOT will be used The name change is also intended 6. Identify and assess strategies to highlight safety issues on the to encourage regions to incorpo- rate congestion management into 7.Program and implement CMP network. the planning process rather than strategies Federal Regulations and have it as a stand-alone program 8. Evaluate strategy effectiveness Policy or system. In 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st This update to the CMP coincides The CMP has been a part of the Century Act (MAP-21) was with plan2040 as a section of the nation’s surface transportation enacted. MAP-21 incorporated a plan and as a separate technical funding program and authoriza- performance-based multimodal report. The 2011 CMP Update tion bills since 1991 when it was focus into the transportation incorporated two new sources of introduced under the Intermodal planning process of MPOs. data; INRIX 2010 historic speed Surface Transportation Efficiency The Fixing America’s Surface data and comprehensive 2009 Act (ISTEA). Under ISTEA, it Transportation Act (FAST Act), accident data from the Virginia was known as the Congestion signed into law on December 4, Department of Transportation. Management System (CMS) 2015, carries the same perfor- Since then the I-95 Corridor and continued as such under mance-based approach from Coalition has worked with the the Transportation Equity Act MAP-21. University of Maryland in devel- for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Citing the Code of Federal oping the Vehicle Probe Project The CMS was created to support Regulations Title 23 Chapter 1, (VPP) suite of analytics and effective decision making as part Section 450.320, a congestion visualization tools to use with of the metropolitan transporta- management process in trans- vehicle probe data sources such as tion planning processes. In 2005, portation management areas is INRIX, Here, and the National the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, defined as a “process that provides Performance Management and Efficient Transportation for safe and effective integrated Research Data Set (NPMRDS). Equity Act: A Legacy for Users management and operation of The VPP tools allow for the (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted the multimodal transportation analysis of historic probe data and refers to a “congestion system, based on a cooperatively Congestion Management Congestion for most of the RRTPO CMP management process” instead of a developed and implemented network. The VPP suite of tools congestion management system, metropolitan-wide strategy, of 268 will be used in the analysis of recognizing that the CMS was new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding… through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies”. The development of the CMP is flexible, allowing each metropol- itan area to address how they will analyze and identify congestion and safety conditions within their transportation network. The CMP is an ongoing process which continually evolves and grows with new congestion issues, new data sources, new strategies, and even changes in goals and objec- tives over time. The results of fig. 6.1. RRTPO Boundary Area the CMP are multimodal system Commuting Patterns performance measures; and strat- capacity being the last option to be considered. egies that manage demand and Based on the 2009-2013 5-Year reduce SOV travel. These strategies can be grouped Estimates from the American as: Community Survey (ACS) RRTPO Congestion • Traffic Operations Strategies data, commuting data for the Management Goals which focus on increasing the Richmond region, by jurisdic- efficiencies of the roadway tion, was analyzed to determine In developing the CMP network through the use of intelligent transportation the length of time commuters Technical Report, the goals systems (ITS) traveled to work and the means of of plan2040 were taken into transportation which was taken. consideration. The goals focus on • Public Transportation The Longitudinal Employer access to employment, conges- Strategies which focus on improving transit service Household Dynamics program tion mitigation, freight mobility, and coverage and rely on (LEHD) was used to obtain multimodal connectivity, system transportation demand the distance traveled to jobs. A reliability, safety, and transpor- management (TDM) and ITS map of the Richmond region tation/land use integration. To • Demand Management below shows the jurisdictions achieve these goals the CMP Strategies which focus on included in the ACS data and puts forth strategies to maintain providing more transportation the commuting footprint for the and optimize the current options by promoting the use data collection and analysis in transportation network and to of alternative modes, managing and pricing assets, altering the CMP Technical Report. promote alternatives to SOV work patterns, and influencing travel and thereby increase mode land use choice. The implementation of these strategies is not mutually • Road Capacity Strategies which focus on adding capacity exclusive and they often overlap, to the roadway network Management Congestion with new construction to add through redesign and new construction 269 fig. 6.2. means of transportation to work by jurisdiction Means of Transportation percentage of commuters driving for the City of Richmond. to Work alone in each jurisdiction is: Goochland has nearly the same • Charles City 81% share for carpooling and working The majority of commuters in at home at 8% and 7%, respec- • Chesterfield 86% the Richmond region drive to tively. Other, motorcycle, bicycle, work alone. Carpooling comes • Goochland 84% walking, taxicab and other, make in a distant second at only 9.05% up a significant share, 8%, of the of commuters carpooling and • Hanover 85% mode to work for commuters in the category of worked at home • Henrico 84% the City of Richmond. makes up 4.57%. Transit and other make up the remaining • New Kent 83% Travel Time to Work 4.67% with transit accounting for 1.82% of commuters region • Powhatan 83% The largest percent of commuters wide. • Richmond 70% in the Richmond region, 45%, spend 15 to 29 minutes In most jurisdictions, the commuting. Of the rest, 23% percentage of commuters The only jurisdiction with less of commuters have a commute driving alone is above 80%. The than 80% of its commuters of less than 15 minutes and 27 driving alone is the City of % have a trip of between 30 to Richmond, which has 70% of 59 minutes. Commuters with its commuters driving alone. a commute of 1 hour or more Richmond also has the largest make up only 4% of the region’s share of commuters who use commuters. public transit at 6%. Concerning alternatives to driving alone, The breakdown among the carpooling makes up the largest jurisdictions shows differences share of commuters.. Working between the smaller jurisdictions Congestion Management Congestion at home has the next highest and the larger ones. The larger jurisdictions have a higher propor- fig. 6.3. means of transportation to work by Modeshare in each jurisdiction, except 270 tion of commuters commuting 44%, New Kent 43% to 51%, and percentage of commuters in the Powhatan 41% to 50%. Charles larger jurisdictions travel under City has the highest percentage 10 miles. Powhatan commuters of commuters commuting 1 hour don’t follow this pattern, having or longer at 11% of commuters the highest percentage of making a commute this long. commuters traveling less than 10 miles to jobs. Commutes for Distance to Jobs residents of Chesterfield are evenly split between less than Just over 50% of the commuters 10 miles and 11 to 24 miles, fig. 6.4. travel time to work in minutes in the Richmond region have with 41% of commuters having commutes of less than 10 miles. under 30 minutes compared to trips of each category. Hanover’s Commuters traveling 11 to 24 commuters are also almost evenly commuting 30 to 60 minutes. miles make up the next largest The proportions for Chesterfield split between commutes of less percentage at 31%, and more than 10 minutes and 11 to 24 are 63% to 33%; Hanover 66% commuters travel over 50 miles, to 29%; Henrico 77 % to 20%; minutes at 43% and 41%, respec- 14%, than those who travel 25 to tively. Even though only 4% of all and Richmond 77% to 18%. The 50 miles, 4%. smaller jurisdictions have either commuters region wide travel 25 larger percentages of commuters The smaller jurisdictions have to 50 miles to jobs, the percentage with the longer commutes or between 62% and 70% of of commuters from Goochland the proportion of commutes less commuters with commutes of and New Kent are notable at 29% than 30 minutes and commutes 50 miles or less while the larger and 24%, respectively. Charles of 30 to 60 minutes are similar. jurisdictions have 82% to 85% City also has a large percentage Charles City has 36% of of commuters with commutes of commuters traveling this far commuters commuting less than of this length. The largest at 20%. The only jurisdiction 30 minutes and 52% commuting percentage of commuters in the which has a large percentage of 30 to 60 minutes. Corresponding smaller jurisdictions travel 11 commuters traveling over 50 figures for Goochland are 49% to to 24 miles, whereas the largest miles is Powhatan. Commuters Congestion Management Congestion fig. 6.5. travel time to work in minutes by Jurisdiction 271 in the City of Richmond have collected by INRIX. The score- performance or regional char- the shortest commutes, with 68% card provides information on acteristics, and in comparing less than 10 miles. several factors related to conges- the Richmond region with tion and mobility for urban areas other similar regions. It should in the United States. Richmond be noted that the data in the is included in the study under the Urban Mobility Scorecard is for classification of a large urban area the entire Richmond urbanized (1 million to 3 million people). area from its 2010 designation, This is the first year Richmond not the TPO study area, which has been classified as a large is a different geographic area as urban area. Since 1982 Richmond shown in Map 6.2. has been a medium urban area (500,000 to 1 million people).
fig. 6.6. distance to jobs by miles Richmond, being the smallest in the large urban category, will be Regional Performance compared to the 7 smallest large Measures urban areas and the 6 largest medium urban areas instead of to The Texas Transportationthe large urban areas as a whole. Institute (TTI) at Texas A&M The summary data for Richmond University publishes an annual and its peer large urban areas are Urban Mobility Scorecard, provided in Fig. 6.8. formerly called the Urban Mobility Report. The Urban The data from the Urban Mobility Scorecard uses highway Mobility Scorecard allows for performance data from the the tracking of trends related to Federal Highway Administration the performance of the roadway and, beginning with the 2015 network. The data is useful in scorecard, traffic speed data detecting directional changes in Congestion Management Congestion
fig. 6.7. distance to jobs by miles by jurisdiction 272 fig. 6.8. summary data for tti urban mobility report for richmond urbanized area
Richond Urbanized Area
map 6.25. richmond urbanized area Congestion Management Congestion
273 fig. 6.9. daily vehicle miles traveled from 2000-2014 for richmond urbanized area Daily Vehicle-Miles of Urbanized Areas from the Urban Richmond also has the lowest Travel Mobility Scorecard. DVMT in number of congested hours the Richmond Urbanized Area at 1.5 hours. Memphis has 2 Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) had been growing until 2007 congested hours and Tucson has is the total number of miles at which point it began a slight 2.4. Looking at these measures of traveled by vehicles in a spec- decline for 6 of the past 8 years. congestion, Richmond has very ified region for a specified time little congestion compared to its period and is used as an indicator Congested Hours, peers. of roadway use. Daily VMT is a Congested Lane-Miles, measure commonly used to gauge and Congested VMT Annual Hours of delay the daily demand placed on a region’s transportation network, When comparing Congested Annual hours of delay is computed and is used to determine feder- Hours, Congested Lane-Miles, by TTI as the total travel time al-funding. The Federal Highway and Congested VMT (See the above that needed to complete Administration (FHWA) along Scorecard methodology at the a trip at free-flow speeds. The with each state department of end of the section) for the 13 Richmond urbanized area ranks transportation determine the large urban areas, Richmond’s 53rd out of 101. Rankings for state‘s annual average daily traffic level of congestion is the lowest the other 12 comparison regions (AADT) and convert it to VMT for all three measures. The percent range from 33rd to 55th, making by multiplying the AADT by the of Richmond’s VMT which is the Richmond urbanized area length of the road segment. congested is 16%, whereas the second in lowest hours of delay next lowest percentage is for behind Raleigh, NC. Annual Richmond’s DMVT for 2014 Memphis at 23%. Richmond‘s hours of delay have increased was 21,211,000 miles, 11,719 percentage of lane miles which steadily, correcting slightly freeway miles and 9,492 arterial are congested is 16%. Providence, around 2008 and then continuing miles. Richmond’s DVMT of Congestion Management Congestion Memphis, and Raleigh all tie for to increase. This trend is similar 21,211 is above the average of second lowest with 20 percent of in the other regions; although 18,965 for the 13 comparison 274 their lane-miles being congested. some declined further and some have had a flatter increase since their declines. Travel Time Index
The travel time index (TTI) is a ratio of travel time in peak period traffic to travel time in free-flow. It measures the amount of addi- tional time needed to make a trip during a typical peak travel period in comparison to traveling at unimpeded speeds. fig. 6.10. daily vmt and annual hours of delay trends from 2000-2014 for richmond urbanized area The TTI is computed by dividing the average of all peak period trip times for a region by the average of all free flow (non-peak) travel times for the region. If an average trip in a region took 26 minutes during the peak travel period, but only 20 minutes under free-flow conditions, the travel time index would be 26/20 = 1.30. This can also be expressed by stating that the delay penalty for driving during the peak period is approx- imately 6 minutes. fig. 6.11. annual hours of delay comparison to other urbanized areas from 2000-2014 for The TTI for the Richmond richmond urbanized area region was 1.13 in both 2014 and the same trip at times of the day highest TTI at 1.36 and ranks 2013. In 2005, the TTI average when travel occurs at free-flow 6th. Similar to the others, was 1.11, and Richmond ranked speeds. For the past decade, the Richmond’s TTI increased until 92nd lowest out of 101 urban Richmond urbanized area has 2008 and then declined due to areas. In 2006, it increased to ranked in the high 80’s to the low the Great Recession. By 2014 1.12, and in 2008 to 1.13. The 90’s and is currently ranked 88th Richmond’s TTI was again at following year the TTI returned out of the 101 other urban areas. 2008 levels. Only Charlotte to 1.12, where it remained until it and Nashville have TTIs lower reached its current level of 1.13. Richmond has the lowest TTI than they did in 2008. The TTI With a TTI of 1.13, it would take of the 13 peer urban areas. declines in Austin, Nashville, and a driver in the Richmond region Raleigh and Buffalo tie in rank Hartford began before 2008. 13% longer to make a trip during at 54th with TTIs of 1.17, and peak travel periods as opposed to Bridgeport-Stamford has the Congestion Management Congestion fig. 6.12. population, travel time index, annual hours of delay, and dvmt for 2005-2014 for richmond urbanized area 275 Planning Time Index for applying mitigation strategies RRTPO study area. The study still exist. area is within the boundary of the The Planning Time Index (PTI) Richmond Regional Planning is a measure of reliability. A Congestion District Commission (RRPDC), 95th percentile PTI represents Management Process which is made up of the Town the amount of time you must Network Analysis of Ashland, the Counties of plan for a trip in order to be Charles City, Chesterfield, late only one time in a month. The RRTPO CMP process Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, Richmond’s PTI of 1.76 means consists of four activities that New Kent and Powhatan, and that to ensure that you will not seek to define, identify, mitigate, the City of Richmond. Hanover be late when making a trip which and monitor congestion on the and Henrico Counties are fully could take 20 minutes if there is CMP network. within the study area as is the no traffic, you should plan on just • System Definition and Data City of Richmond. A majority of over 35 minutes for the trip. In Collection - Identify the roads Chesterfield County is also within other words you should increase to be included in the CMP study network. Determine the study area except for the your expected trip time by 76% the time frame and frequency southern portion which is within or approximately 15 minutes. of data which will be used to the Tri-Cities Area MPO. The Richmond ranks 80th out of quantify congestion. eastern portions of Goochland the 101 urbanized areas in the • Congestion Definition and and Powhatan Counties and Urban Mobility Scorecard. That Identification - Develop the western portions of Charles is the best ranking for the peer indicators of congestion that City and New Kent Counties group, with the next best rank can be quantified through the complete the study area. being 55th, which is held by use of performance measures (e.g. travel time and speed for Congestion Management Pro- Memphis and Oklahoma City. roadway segments) (TTI, PTI, cess Network The peer group ranks fall within BI, Speed). Then apply the the range of 32nd to 55th with congestion indicators to the Data for the CMP will consist of New Orleans and Bridgeport- CMP network to determine 2014, on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, congested corridors. The Stamford having the worst ranks result will be the identification Thursdays, INRIX traffic data of 3rd and 5th respectively. of locations where recurring obtained through the I-95 congestion exists along the Corridor Coalition VPP, and The RRTPO Regional CMP network. PSI safety designation score. The Performance Measures 2015 CMP network has not changed Annual Progress Report indi- • Congestion Management Strategies - Compile a list from the one used for the 2011 cates that at a regional scale, the of congestion mitigation CMP Update (see Fig. 6.12). The highway network in Richmond strategies which could be used CMP roadway network consists to mitigate congestion. allows for easier, more reliable of interstates, other freeways and movement of workers as • System Monitoring - Develop expressways, and other principal compared to most other metros. corridor fact pages with arterials in the RRTPO study This scale of analysis is interesting performance data and trends, area. There are four interstates, mitigation strategies, and in drawing broad conclusions I-95, I-195, I-295 and I-64 in about the state of congestion projects in the TIP and MTP which will impact the corridor. the Richmond region, along with in the Richmond region, but 5 roadways classified as other such a scale may overlook the System Definition and Data freeways and expressways, VA-76 well-known spot areas of daily Collection
Congestion Management Congestion (toll), VA-150, VA-195 (toll), congestion where opportunities VA-288, and VA-895 (toll). The CMP monitors the trans- 276 portation system located in the Road Name Description From the northern MPO boundary in Hanover County to the I 95 southern MPO boundary in Chesterfield County From SR 617 (exit 167) in Goochland County to SR 155 (exit I 64 214) in New Kent County From the Bryan Park Interchange to I 95 (exit 74) in the City of I 195 Richmond From I 64 (exit 177) in Henrico County to the southern MPO I 295 boundary in Chesterfield County From SR 288 in Henrico County to SR 161 (Boulevard) in the SR 6 City of Richmond From US 360 in the City of Richmond to I 295 in Chesterfield SR 10* County
SR 76 From 288 in Chesterfield County to I 195 in the City of Richmond From US 60 in Chesterfield County to SR 150 in the City of SR 147 Richmond From I 95 in Chesterfield County to route 7518 (Parham Road) in SR 150** Henrico County From I 95 (exit 80) in the City of Richmond to SR 10 in the City SR 161 of Richmond SR 288 From I 64 in Henrico County to I 95 in Chesterfield County SR 895** From I 95 in Chesterfield County to I 295 in Henrico County From the northern MPO boundary in Hanover County to the US 1 southern MPO boundary in Chesterfield County From Route 632 (Ashland Road) in Hanover County to US 250 in US 33 the City of Richmond From US 522 (Maidens Road) in Powhatan County to US 360 US 60 downtown in the City of Richmond and from Laburnum Avenue to SR 155 in New Kent County US 250 Broad Street from western MPO boundary to 18th Street From western MPO boundary in Chesterfield County to Route US 360 606 (Studley Road) in Hanover County From US 60 in Chesterfield County to US 360 in Chesterfield Courthouse Rd* County
Parham Rd From SR 150 in Henrico to US 301 in Henrico County
Laburnum Ave From the Bryan Park Interchange to SR 895 in Henrico County
From I 64 (exit 197) in Henrico County to SR 895 Henrico Management Congestion Airport Rd** County fig. 6.13. 2016 cmp network 277 RRTPO CMP Network
map 6.26. RRTPO cmp network With roads marked with an (*), in 1993 to enhance regional INRIX. VDOT has purchased INRIX data is not available on transportation mobility, safety, INRIX data for the entire state these roadways and with and efficiency along I-95 in the of Virginia for use in the VPP. Mid-Atlantic States. The coali- These analytics form the basis of (**) indicate roads with small tion has grown from its original the analysis which was performed portions of the roadway not focus on vehicle travel along in this CMP. The tools in the covered by INRIX data. I-95 to an organization which VPP are used to determine the Congestion Definition andencompasses all modes of trans- location and intensity of conges- Identification portation and a geographic area tion and the times at which The CMP relies heavily on vehicle far greater than the I-95 corridor. congestion occurs. The I-95 Corridor Coalition probe data purchased by VDOT Potential for Safety Improvement and analyzed using analytical partnered with the CATT Labs at the University of Maryland in (PSI) scores developed by tools provided through the I-95 the HSIP staff of the Traffic Corridor Coalition. In 2010 the the development of the Vehicle Probe Project (VPP), a set of Engineering Division of VDOT Richmond Area Transportation will be used to highlight safety Congestion Management Congestion Planning Organization joined analytics and visualization tools for use with real-time traffic issues on the CMP network. the I-95 Corridor Coalition, an A PSI score is the number of 278 interagency group established information data provided by serious or fatal crashes minus and to promote alternatives to transportation demand manage- the predicted rate for that type/ SOV travel, thereby increasing ment (TDM) and ITS. volume roadway. mode choice. Strategies in the CMP are designed to promote a 4. Road Capacity Strategies There are two types of congestion: reliable transportation network. which focus on adding a capacity recurring and non-recurring. to the roadway network through Recurring congestion is caused Congestion redesign and new construction. by the physical state of a roadway Management Strategies and is usually predictable. This Example RRTPO CMP strate- gies include: congestion can occur due to an There are many conges- increase in demand, a change tion management strategies, Demand Management in roadway capacity from one broadly categorized as Demand • Ridesharing section to another, multiple Management Strategies, Traffic • Telecommuting access points or unsafe condi- Operations Strategies, Public tions. As people use the roadway Transportation Strategies, and • Flexible work schedules they become accustomed to this Road Capacity Strategies. The congestion. Morning and after- use of any combination of strat- • Parking management noon peak hours are typically egies is permissible, however all • Bicycle infrastructure and when this type of congestion strategies should be evaluated amenities generally occurs, but it may occur before considering adding single at other times in areas with a occupant vehicle (SOV) capacity. • Pedestrian infrastructure and high concentration of shopping amenities area or at an event venue. The Congestion Management Process Guidebook describes the Traffic Operations Non-recurring congestion is four categories of strategies as: • Operations centers caused by some activity on a roadway, and is usually not 1. Demand Management • Real-time traffic condition expected. Traffic incidents,Strategies which focus on apps for drivers providing more transportation vehicle crashes and breakdowns, • Timed signals pot holes or other roadway options by promoting the use failures, and events which spill of alternative modes, managing • Incident clearance - Safety over on to the roadway such as and pricing assets, altering work Service Patrols patterns, and influencing land building fires, all have an impact • Open road tolling on the ability of a roadway to use. • Over height vehicle sensors handle the usual volume of 2. Traffic Operations traffic. Non-recurring congestion Strategies which focus on • Curve speed warning systems impacts the reliability of our increasing the efficiencies of the region’s transportation system. roadway network through the Public Transportation The FHWA finds it acceptable use of intelligent transportation • Interface with other modes for each MPO to approach systems (ITS). (Bicycle) the Congestion Management 3. Public Transportation • Electronic fares Process in a manner unique Strategies which focus on to their region and goals. The improving transit service • GPS goals of the RRTPO CMP are and coverage and rely on Management Congestion to maintain and optimize the • Apps for transit schedules current transportation network 279 Road Capacity System Monitoring red with thick line indicates a • Restriping and lane TTI of 1.8 to 2. The red thin line modifications Performance metrics from the indicates a TTI of 1.5 to 1.8. The VPP suite were analyzed for the thin orange line indicates a TTI • Intersection improvements CMP network. The TTI for the of less than 1.5. • Interchange improvements and network during the morning Transportation Projects af- collector distributor lanes peak period from 7 to 9 am is fecting the CMP Network shown below. The darkest red and • Roundabouts thickest lines indicate a TTI of Many of the projects which • Turn lanes over 2. Second darkest red with have been programed in the thick line indicates a TTI of 1.8 Transportation Improvement • Access management To 2. The red thin line indicates a Program (TIP) are located on TTI of 1.5 to 1.8. The thin orange the CMP network and advance line indicates a TTI of less than the goals of the CMP. Since 1.5. For the PM TTI, the darkest these projects are located on the red and thickest lines indicate a network they increase the effi- TTI of over 2. Second darkest ciency of the network through
RRTPO CMP Network AM Peak - TTI Data Congestion Management Congestion
map 6.27. rRTPO cmp network am peak tti data 280 RRTPO CMP Network PM Peak - TTI Data
map 6.28. rRTPO cmp network Pm peak tti data the strategies of improving Intelligent information communications intersections and interchanges, Transportation Systems and control technologies that redesigning roadways, adding improve the safety, efficiency, turning lanes, and adding Intelligent Transportation and performance of the surface pedestrian amenities. There are Systems (ITS) is an aspect of transportation system. ITS tech- other non-road specific projects the transportation system which nologies provide the traveling in the region which affect the is undergoing rapid change. public with accurate, real-time CMP network. These include Not only are there new devel- information, allowing them to improvements to traffic signal opments in ITS but these new make more informed and effi- systems, park and ride lots, a bike developments give rise to new cient travel decisions. When share system, demand manage- transportation opportunities integrated into the nation’s ment programs provided through and challenges. The Intelligent roadways, vehicles, consumer RideFinders, and transit system Transportation Society of electronics devices and public improvements implemented by America (ITSA) put forth the transportation networks, ITS GRTC. following description of ITS in can save lives, reduce congestion, their Strategic Plan. “Intelligent improve mobility and optimize Management Congestion Transportation Systems (ITS) the existing infrastructure. ITS encompass a broad range of 281 investments provide a foundation highways, computerized traffic for long-term benefits including signal systems, emergency vehicle government and industry pre-emption devices on major cost savings, economy-wide roadways, and automatic vehicle productivity improvements, location and electronic fare boxes and an improved quality of on the transit system. life.” Intelligent Transportation Society of America Strategic Change has also come as travelers Plan use private-sector developed ITS enhancements. Smart phones are The USDOT ITS Strategic Plan a prime force behind many of 2015-2019 touches on another the latest innovations, and apps aspect of ITS. “Nearly every facet are available to get directions of our society is undergoing a and travel conditions, call a ride, shift of connecting the individual and plan a multimodal or transit to the community. The “Internet based trip. Phones are even used of Things” movement is giving to find parking and to pay for it. great power to the individual, by These changes help to increase personalizing information that the mobility of the region. is time and location-aware. The “Internet of Things” also allows The implementation of crash the broad transportation commu- avoidance systems in new nity (including public agencies vehicles and the research related and private organizations) to be to connected and self-driving more equipped to address how cars will improve the safety of individuals experience transpor- the transportation system. tation. The paradigm in which we The ITS architecture maintained can balance individual decision by VDOT is an important making and system-optimal planning tool. The architecture transportation management is will ensure the connectivity within grasp.” and interoperability of the ITS These two statements paint a infrastructure as additional picture of a future transportation components are integrated into system in which safety, efficiency, the transportation system. and mobility will be increased. These changes will not be imple- mented solely in the public sector, but they will impact the policy and planning decisions which will be made by public entities. Many well-known forms of ITS are currently being used in the
Congestion Management Congestion Richmond region, including electronic tolling, traffic cameras, 282 variable message signs on this page intentionally left blank Congestion Management Congestion
283 284 Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a set of planning processes, strategies, and policy decisions that are aimed at relieving congestion and improving efficiencies of the transportation infrastructure. TDM strategies result in more efficient use of transportation resources and provide a variety of economic, social, and environmental benefits. This section will focus on TDM strategies that are, or could be used in the Richmond region.
The RRTPO serves as the Richmond region’s lead agency responsible for developing TDM processes, strategies, and policies and coordinating and partnering with provider entities that implement TDM strategies and activities. TDM policies, plans and programs supported by the TPO include: • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) • Congestion Management Process (CMP) Planning • Transit and Fare Incentives • Carpool and Vanpooling • Freight Diversion (I-64 Express) • Flexible Work Hours and Teleworking • Active Transportation: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections • Park and Ride Investments • Parking Supply • Other TDM Strategies for Alternative Transportation
RideFinders RideFinders, a division of the GRTC Transit System, is the regional non-profit TDM/rideshare agency that works to move more people in fewer vehicles around the Central Virginia region. RideFinders’ efforts help increase the efficiency of the region’s transportation infrastructure, protect the air quality, enhance the quality of life, and sustain a healthy economy. RideFinders’ mission is “to foster increased efficiency of the transportation system by influencing travel behavior mode, time, frequency, trip length, or route. As a result, RideFinders expects to reduce traffic congestion, conserve energy, improve air quality and reduce transportation-related expenditures of individuals, employers and governments.”
285 Beginning in 2009, the Virginia • Bike and Pedestrian Commuter commuters that few even think Service Department of Rail and Public of trying an alternative without Transportation (DRPT) requires • Park and Ride Lot Information encouragement and assistance. all recipients of TDM grant funds Providing complementary to prepare a Long-Range TDM programs and services that Carpooling is the sharing of Plan. RideFinders completed increase commuters’ awareness rides in a private vehicle among its first Long-Range TDM of their alternatives, enhance the two or more individuals and is Plan in the summer of 2011. Its convenience of using an alterna- the most common type of TDM current Work Program covers tive, as well as reduce the need for alternative to driving alone. In the period from July 1, 2014- a personal automobile during the addition to a matching service to June 30, 2018. This document workday, are important support help form carpools, RideFinders provides an overview of the measures that employers can provides management for a fleet RideFinders TDM program; a offer. of approximately 140 vanpools summary of goals, objectives and serving Greater Richmond performance measures; TDM Complementary programs and locations. Vanpools are an program elements and service services fall into three catego- important alternative to driving enhancements; description of ries: TDM program marketing, alone, falling midway between RideFinders enhanced marketing site amenities and design, and transit and carpools in terms of program, and a funding overview. supporting activities. carrying capacity and flexibility, TDM Marketing The list below containseconomics, and convenience to As a complementary measure, the programs and services the user. Vanpools usually involve program marketing features the RideFinders provides for groups of seven to fifteen people dissemination of information commuters and employers – mainly commuters – traveling on available TDM services and throughout the Central Virginia together in a passenger van on a incentives to the public at large, region: routine basis. • Transit Information and Transit the business community, or Media Not all carpools and vanpools specific travel markets. Program in the Richmond area use the marketing often also includes • Vanpool Formation Services services of RideFinders, so it is personalized trip planning assis- • Carpool Matching not known precisely how many tance and special promotional carpools and vanpools operate activities such as transportation • Telework Consulting at any given time. Information fairs or Commuter Information gathered from surveys indi- Days that can increase commuters’ • Clean Air Program cates that the use of alternative interest in ridesharing. • Downtown Commuter Guide modes of travel such carpool/ vanpool, bus, bike/walk and Marketing of TDM can be • Emergency Ride Home telework accounts for 12 percent directed to commuters at several Program of commuter travel in the geographic levels: regional, local area, and individual employers. • Transportation Planning Richmond area. Regional marketing typically • Employer-Based Marketing Employer is sponsored by regional ride- Complementary Support sharing or planning agencies, • Employer Relocation and Site transit operators, and local Analysis Services Measures Transportation Demand Management Transportation governments. These agencies • Commuter Choice Program Driving alone is such a long- often promote the use of TDM 286 Development standing habit for most generally, but some regional programs promote specificavailable only to employees at The highest level of infor- regional strategies or services that site. mation assistance is provided such as public transit. Regional by a commute information commute groups increasingly There are three components of center, centrally located within focus on employer–based TDM TDM marketing that warrant an employment area, a transit marketing activities because of attention: information dissemina- station, or an individual employ- their greater effectiveness in tion, transportation coordinators, ment site. At this level, the promoting TDM to employees. and special promotions. commuter still makes an effort Information dissemination to use the center’s resources, but TDM marketing can also be receives immediate, personalized targeted to a smaller audience in methods might include mass mailings, websites, newspaper, assistance. These centers are a defined local area, for example, staffed, generally full-time, and an employment, shopping, or radio and television advertising, and roadside signs. At individual provide information on avail- residential complex. Developers able services and personalized and property managers are often employment sites, information dissemination typically relies commute planning. RideFinders’ the sponsors of these programs Commuter Store, located in generally as a condition placed on on posters, bulletin boards, flyers distributed desk-to-desk, downtown Richmond, serves the development project by a local as an outlet for distribution of planning board. TDM marketing in-house newsletters, broadcast e-mails, new employee orienta- transit fare media, personalized in a local area can also be spon- ridematching assistance, and sored by groups of employers tion packets, paycheck inserts, voicemail announcements and other commute-related products and/or developers (e.g., transpor- and services. tation management associations). periodic promotional events such To these groups, joint marketing as transportation fairs. Methods Employee Transportation could result in cost savings of disseminating local area Coordinators (ETCs), offer over individual promotion. At information may include posted individual trip planning assis- employment sites, local area notices, newsletters, website tance at employment sites, marketing is often targeted to links, promotional events, mass and perform more general new tenants by the leasing agent mailings to new tenants or new marketing and information or building manager. Residential- homeowners, and distribu- functions. At employment sites, based programs often target new tions through realtors, building the ETC generally serves as the residents through realtors and managers, and Chambers of administrator of the company’s property managers. Commerce. The most basic level commute program and manages of information dissemination is the program’s development, The third geographic level of passive postings, such as carpool implementation, marketing, program marketing is at an indi- ridematch boards, “take one” administration, and evaluation. vidual employment site. Here, information displays, kiosks, At some job sites, the ETC marketing is done by employers mass mailings, and roadside signs position is a full or part-time who promote use of TDM that inform commuters of assis- position. In the Central Virginia options to their employees. tance available from a remote region, most of the ETC job Employer marketing effortssource such as a regional ride- functions are incorporated as a sometimes include general sharing agency. At this level, the part of an already established promotion of TDM, but most commuter must make the effort position. ETC’s are at the heart often market the specific TDM to follow-up with an e-mail, call of RideFinders’ efforts to help Demand Management Transportation services and incentives provided or mail-back card to receive more Central Virginia maintain the by the employer or options information. region’s air quality and reduce 287 traffic congestion. RideFinders second group of complementary Supporting Services offers free training, recognition programs, site amenities and Supporting services are program opportunities and total support design, is to change the work elements that address two to these liaisons to the business site to make it more “friendly” to concerns that commuters often community. commute alternatives. have about use of commute TDM marketing often includes “Rideshare Friendly” work site alternatives: the fear of being special promotions such as design refers to work sites that: stranded without transportation periodic prize drawings, contests, accommodate the space and in the event of an emergency and awards for ridesharing, commuter maneuvering needs of transit the fear that use of ridesharing or bicycle clubs, and other activ- and vanpool vehicles; provide will hinder their advancement in ities to attract the attention of safe, attractive rideshare loading the company. commuters, generate excitement areas and preferential parking Emergency Ride Home (ERH) about the use of commute alter- areas; and minimize the walking programs, also known as guaran- natives, and reward ridesharers. distance for high-occupan- teed return trip, are “commuter They are often sponsored in cy-vehicle (HOV) commuters. insurance.” ERH programs conjunction with area-wide Some sites also target the special address concerns about being commuter promotions such as needs of bicycle and pedestrian stranded without transporta- annual Try Transit ridesharing commuters by including bicycle tion, responding to personal week, Clean Commute Day, parking protected from theft emergencies, or working late or Air Quality Action Days. and from weather, showers and unexpectedly by offering free Special promotions are widely personal storage lockers, and or subsidized emergency trans- used, especially at employment bicycle maintenance facilities. portation, generally by taxicab sites, in part due to their low or rental car, to commuters cost and high publicity value. In On-site services include cafete- rias and restaurants, dry cleaners, who use alternative commute addition, transportation or ride- modes. RideFinders has an ERH share organizations may appeal ATMs, convenience shopping, video rental stores, printers and program for registered carpool to the general public through or vanpool commuters, cyclists radio and television commercials, copy shops, and other personal or business-related service and pedestrians, and bus riders. press releases, and public service When registering, they must announcements. establishments commuters need to perform workday errands. certify that they are committed While RideFinders provides all Availability of service establish- to this alternative mode at least of these services, there remains a ments on-site or within walking three days a week. role for local jurisdictions and the distance can minimize both the Corporate Commitment reflects TPO to play in encouraging the true and perceived need for a a willingness of upper level use of these available resources personal auto. corporate management to devote by more businesses within the While site design issues are best resources to the TDM program, Central Virginia region. provide tangible incentives, Site Amenities and Design left to local jurisdictions during the design review and negotiation establish a corporate “culture” Many employment sites, espe- phase, RideFinders has a strong that supports employees’ use of cially those in suburban areas, and vested interest in working commute alternatives, and to were designed with the expec- with developers regarding site participate in local and regional
Transportation Demand Management Transportation tation that employees would design. transportation-related programs. primarily arrive by private It is typically demonstrated by an 288 automobile. The goal of the extensive package of incentives offered to commuters, but of HOV facilities in state and • Vanpool Operating Subsidies: Vanpool subsidies also includes supportive work regional transportation system can take many forms. environment policies. Strong plans. Currently, the Richmond Employers that provide corporate commitment is some- area has no HOV facilities nor the vehicles, underwrite times manifested by ridesharing does it have any planned. insurance and capital costs, or help employee groups among corporate executives. arrange vanpool leases are Economic Incentives providing an “in-kind” form of Preferential High Occupancy financial incentive. The federal Vehicle (HOV) Treatments Two key factors in the decision Commuter Choice Program to use one mode over another allows employers to subsidize HOV facilities are designed are the relative time and costs. the costs of employees’ vanpool costs and operated to give rideshare Financial incentives, termed commuters priority treatment. user subsidies, offered directly • Rideshare Subsidies: Preferential HOV facilities are to commuters by employers Rideshare subsidies represent an effective way to encourage or public agencies, have been a means to more equitably travelers to use higher-occupancy effective. Recent studies have implement a financial incentive by allowing employees to modes of travel by allowing concluded that subsidies are a choose the alternative that rideshare commuters exclusive component of effective employer best suits their travel needs, use of HOV lanes. The resulting trip reduction programs. Most and then apply the rideshare reduction in travel time serves as commonly, subsidies are provided subsidy to that mode. an incentive to encourage use of by employers who need to reduce HOVs. parking demand or to alleviate Other Financial Incentives access problems. Alternatively, HOV lanes are introduced by public agencies may offer subsi- Other financial incentives that adding a lane (the HOV lane(s) dies to commuters to achieve provide a real, monetary incentive are introduced as entirely new localized or area-wide trip reduc- to using alternative travel modes capacity), or by taking a lane, tion goals. do not involve direct subsidy which involves the reallocation of payments to users. These include: current facilities, thereby taking Some of the more common • use of fleet vehicles for capacity away from existing subsidy programs include: ridesharing traffic. While adding a lane has Employer/Developer-Provided • free or discounted fuel for been successful nationally, taking pooling vehicles a lane has generally not been Incentives embraced by citizens. • Transit Pass Subsidies: An • free or discounted agency purchases transit maintenance and repair for Programming HOV facil- passes, tickets or tokens for pooling vehicles employee use. The agency can ities relies significantly on either cover the full cost, share- • extra vacation for commute available resources and the ability the-fare with the employee, or alternative users to dedicate those resources toward pre-tax the fare cost. In other an HOV project. Increasingly, cases, the employer agrees to • free or discounted equipment reimburse employees for their (shoes, bicycle helmets) federal and state funding purchases programs and regulations (such as the federal Clean Air Act, Congestion Management System requirements, and local traffic Demand Management Transportation mitigation ordinances) may place higher priority on the inclusion 289 Public Agency-Provided • Vanpool Start-up Subsidies: can also be utilized. In addition, Some public agencies have Incentives subsidized the start-up costs of municipalities can secure federal • Transit Fare Discounts: vanpools. This is accomplished grants for pilot programs. The Fare discounts targeted to by either providing a one-time City of Richmond Employee commuters are fairly rare, start-up incentive to new Trip Reduction Program is an because commuters represent vanpools or subsidizing all or “choice” riders (i.e., having a part of an individual’s vanpool excellent example: using a mix choice of commute options). fare for the first few months of federal, state and local funds, Service is generally the most of operation. RideFinders’ to date approximately 1,000 costly to operate during the VanStart program, as well employees or 20 percent of the peak periods, and premium as the VanSave program, express-type commuter service subsidizes the cost of empty City’s workforce have enrolled in most often commands a fare seats. VanStart provides the program, with about half of surcharge, not a discount. a temporary subsidy for a those enrolled using the program However, transit operators short, one-time period to on a regular basis. The program have experimented with free allow the vanpool time to fares to increase ridership get the necessary number of provides transit swipecards for riders to fill the vanpool. The participants, as well as vanpool • Transit Subsidies: While “user- owner-operator or van lessee subsidies for certified vanpool side subsidies” are prevalent must register the vanpool riders. in transportation programs with RideFinders and request serving elderly persons and VanStart assistance within the Subsidies, when combined persons with disabilities, first three (3) months, and the there are some examples of van must already have at least with parking charges, produce public sector agencies offering 50% of its passenger capacity the most effective programs commuters direct subsidies filled. VanSave is a program examined to date. This suggests for using transit. In some that allows existing vanpools that the inclusion of financial cases, cities or counties match that have suffered a loss in employer transit subsidies. In riders to continue to operate incentives in TDM programs is other cases, transit operators until riders can be built up to a a critical consideration for devel- sell passes to employers at a break-even level. The vanpool oping an effective program. discounted rate if the employer must have been operating provides a subsidy match. for at least six months, be As an example, the Commuter Finally, some public agencies registered with RideFinders Choice Program, operated have provided free transit for at least 30 days, and must tickets to commuters to use have lost at least 25% of its by RideFinders, refers to the transit on a trial basis. passengers for more than 30 Internal Revenue Code [(26 days USC 132(f )] which permits employers to offer employees Another effective method for a tax-free benefit to commute providing user subsidies and to work by bus or vanpool. The transit discounts is to provide Commuter Choice Program financial incentives to employers provides an attractive incentive rather than directly to travelers, for employees to choose public so as to reinforce in-house trip transit or vanpools. Employers reduction programs and assist in select one of several program compliance with requirements. options to implement. Over fifty Revenue for public subsidies can (50) Richmond area employers come from a variety of sources. participate in the Commuter Choice Program, some of which
Transportation Demand Management Transportation User fees, such as parking revenue or taxes, can be utilized. include the following: 290 Business taxes and developer fees • Virginia Department of Small • Virginia Department of • Davenport & Company LLC Business & Supplier Diversity Education
• Federal Bureau of Alcohol, • Virginia Department of Parking Supply and Tobacco & Firearms Juvenile Justice Pricing Management • Chippenham-Johnston Willis • Virginia Department of Medical Hospital Assistance Services The development and manage- ment of parking supply involves • Federal Reserve Bank • Virginia Department of many public and private sector Transportation • City of Richmond groups. The public sector plays • Virginia Employment several roles in parking supply, • Federal Highway Commission including: Administration • Virginia Department of • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Forensic Science • Localities set “parking requirements” in codes. • LeClair Ryan • Virginia Department of Requirements in zoning codes Conservation & Recreation usually vary with the type of • University of Richmond land use • Virginia Department of • Williams Mullen Housing & Community • Some localities build and Development manage off-street parking • VCU Health System supply • Virginia Department of Mental • VCU School of Dentistry Health, Mental Retardation and • Localities control supply and Substance Abuse Services regulation of on-street parking • Virginia Department of General Services • Virginia Worker’s • Localities influence rates Compensation charged by private providers of • Virginia Department of parking Environmental Quality • Virginia Department of Social Services • House of Delegates The private sector also has an • Virginia Lottery important role in parking. Where • Office of the Attorney General • Virginia State Bar the market allows, commercial • Senate of Virginia parking operators provide and • Virginia Retirement System price surface lots and garages • State Corporation Commission available to commuters and • Virginia State Police • U.S. Department of Housing & shoppers. Urban Development • Virginia State Board of Elections Policies that influence parking • Virginia Department of supply, price, and location raise Taxation • Library of Virginia equity issues across affected parties. For example, supply or • Virginia Board for People with • Virginia Department of Rail and Disabilities Public Transportation pricing changes at an activity center, whether downtown or • Virginia Department of • Virginia Department of Health suburban, may favor or disadvan- Agriculture & Consumer tage activity center growth and Services • Virginia Department of
Business Assistance the economy relative to other Demand Management Transportation • Virginia Department of centers in a region. Criminal Justice Services • Hilton Garden Inn 291 Parking and Demand effective. However, to achieve • Impose parking pricing and Management discount parking for carpoolers regional objectives of improved where free parking prevails, Parking is a vital element of air quality or trip reduction on or where carpoolers enjoy no price breaks any Transportation Demand routes traversing several jurisdic- tions, multi-jurisdictional pricing Management program. Research • Develop parking regulations has shown that parking pricing efforts are necessary. and pricing for commercial is, by itself, just as effective in and retail mixed-use areas and It is important to appreciate that manage and enforce parking reducing trips as a combination pricing can also bring results of several demand management opposite to those desired. For Supply Management strategies implemented without example, pricing can divert some Parking supply measures support parking pricing. Therefore, the parkers to alternative parking the objective of trip reduction. TPO and area local governments facilities or shorten their parking Revising minimum or maximum should examine parking policy as stay. Planners need to anticipate rates, allowing below minimum an integral part of any demand these possible results along with rates in proximity to transit or for management program. mode shifts. demand management programs, Localities can integrate parking Governments may take several and providing shared parking into their demand manage- approaches to pricing parking. at mixed-use developments are ment efforts through two broad They may: important considerations in a approaches: pricing and supply • Impose or increase fees and trip reduction program. management. Note, however, that surcharges for solo drivers or several of these measures require long-term parkers in public As with pricing, program parking facilities approval at the state level before objectives will determine what they can be considered. • Give price preference to strategies and policy instruments Pricing carpools and vanpools. should apply. For new develop- ments in proximity to transit, Parking pricing can serve the • Tax the providers of parking maximum rates and controls objective of trip reduction. • Impose parking pricing through on street parking will provide Methods such as increased rates regional regulations incentive for transit use. Adding or surcharges at public and private carpool stalls where supply is facilities, removal of parking • Tie funding allocations for road limited will provide an incentive subsidies, implementation of improvements to requirements for local trip reduction plans for pooling, especially where regulations and agreements incorporating parking pricing stalls can be located near building encouraging parking pricing as entrances. Also worthwhile are a demand management measure, flexible requirements allowing Employers also can play a role in changes in commercial parking for reductions in normal on-site rate schedules, parking taxes or pricing. They may: • Remove, reduce or cash out minimum parking require- other means, can reduce vehicle employer-provided parking ments in return for support of trips significantly. subsidies ridesharing and transit encour- agements, peripheral parking and Objectives will determine what • Reverse “early bird” or monthly strategies and policy instruments discounts favoring long-term transit facilities. commuter parking should apply. For lessening local- Localities influence the supply of ized traffic problems, parking parking at and around develop- Transportation Demand Management Transportation pricing or subsidy removal or ments through: changes in public parking rates 292 at employment centers will be fig. 7.1. VDOT Park and Ride Lot Website • Parking code measures allow reductions in minimum using alternative modes such as • On-street controls (meters, requirements in return for traffic carpools, vanpools, bus, train, timed zones) mitigation. bike, or walk. The lots provide an essential service by serving as a • Controls on the amount of Park and Ride Lots place to meet other commuters parking built and operated by the public sector to facilitate ridesharing. A related strategy is the provision of park and ride lots. Park and In 2013, VDOT completed a Localities can exert the most ride lots are parking lots available statewide Park and Ride Lot direct control over parking for use when commuting to work Inventory and Usage Study supplies through the zoning or school, or when sightseeing, which included a full-scale review code. Parking codes establishing shopping, running errands, of all of Virginia’s park and ride the amount of parking developers etc. The lots allow commuters, lots, a website to assist users in must provide can be set with low particularly those traveling finding Park and Ride lots (www. minimums and/or maximums to longer distances, to park their virginiadot.org/travel/parkride/ Demand Management Transportation insure overly ample supplies are vehicles at a convenient location home.asp), and a compiled list not provided. Or, localities can and then finish their commute of recommendations for new, 293 expanded or enhanced Park and • Oilville: Intersection of I-64 & Henrico County Rt 617, Goochland County - 20 Ride Lots. During this study, it spaces was determined that approxi- 6. US 1 near I-95 - 200 spaces • Hadensville: Intersection of Rts mately 75 percent of Virginia’s 7. Williamsburg Rd near P&R lot spaces were being 250 & 629, Goochland County - Eastover Ave -100 spaces 5 spaces used, with some lots not having enough spaces to accommodate New Kent County all of the demand. With a high In addition the above noted sites, 8. Rt 609 at I-64 Exit 211-100 percentage of the P&R spaces GRTC offers express bus service spaces being at or near capacity, VDOT from park and ride lots located recognized a potential need for Currently, there are 12 desig- at Spring Rock Green/Virginia additional P&R lots across the nated park and ride lots in the College, Bon Air Baptist Church, state. In order to provide P&R Richmond region as well as a White Oak Village Shopping lots that are conveniently located Park and Ride Strategy that Center and the Petersburg and feasible for commuters to received funding in FY2014: Transit Center. use, VDOT conducted a data- • Chesterfield Commonwealth driven study to determine where 20: Intersection of Rts 360 and Variable Work Hours 754 (Commonwealth Center and Compressed Work investments in P&R facilities Parkway) - 250 spaces, transit are needed throughout Virginia. service available Weeks The goal of this effort was to develop a P&R investment • Big K-Mart: Intersection of Rt Work hour management is an 60 and 150 -122 spaces,transit important component of travel strategy for each of VDOT’s nine service available construction districts. The study demand management because recommends the development • Southside Plaza:Intersection of work hour policies contribute of eight additional park and ride Rt 30 and 161 -70 spaces,transit heavily to peak hour congestion. service available lots within the Richmond urban- There are three types of variable work hours with potential appli- ized area: • Bottoms Bridge:Intersection of Rts 33 and 249 - 37 spaces cation as demand management Chesterfield County tools: • Mechanicsville: Intersection of • Staggered work hours - 1. Hopkins Road near Rts 360 and 640 - 97 spaces Staggered hours are staged Chippenham Parkway - 150 starting times set by employers spaces • Parham Road: Intersection of Parham Rd and I-64 - 306 • Compressed work weeks - 2. I-95 at Woods Edge Road - spaces, transit service Compressed work weeks allow available employees to work more hours 200 spaces in fewer days than the usual • Glenside Drive: Intersection of eight-hour per day schedule 3. Courthouse Road near Glenside Drive and Crockett Powhite Parkway -2 00 spaces Street - 423 spaces, transit • Flextime - Flextime allows service available employees to set their own 4. Rt 10 near I-95 - 250 spaces arrival and departure time • Gaskins Road: Intersection within a band of time 5. Rt 1/301 near Chippenham of Gaskins Road and I-64 - Parkway - 250 spaces 444 spaces, transit service available Employees and employers may find alternative work hours Transportation Demand Management Transportation • Hickory Haven: Intersection improve quality of life issues of Rts 250 & 623, Goochland and employee performance and 294 County - 98 spaces lessen traffic congestion. Variable and other resources including work hour programs in settings financial incentives. where workers need and want more flexibility in their schedules Participating employers must may reduce absenteeism, tardi- be either a private for-profit ness, and turnover. business, or a non-profit orga- nization classified as such under RideFinders routinely introduces Section 501(c) of the Federal flexible work arrangements when Internal Revenue Code, and must promoting TDM strategies to have a location with 20 or more local employers. Many organiza- employees in northern Virginia, tions throughout the Richmond the greater Richmond area, or region have begun their own the Hampton Roads area to be variable work hour programs. eligible for the Telework!VA financial incentives. RideFinders Teleworking is the source for information and assistance in central Virginia Teleworking is a demand manage- for the Telework! VA incentive ment strategy for reducing program. home-to-work trips by allowing employees to work at home or in a telework center. Teleworking employees usually work at home one to several days per week, but generally report to a central office location on the remaining days. To be able to work at home, employees are linked to the work place by computer and modem and other electronic communica- tion devices. The Telework! VA program provides incentives for Virginia businesses to establish or expand telework programs for employees. The Telework!VA program was launched by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) to help reduce the number of commuters on Virginia roadways. Telework!VA provides guidance to companies on how to design a telework program, offering step- Demand Management Transportation by-step instructions, case studies of successful implementation, 295 296 Transportation Innovations
How we choose to travel via our primary mode of transportation is in a constant state of development and change. In the Richmond region just a few generations ago, travel within the region was primarily accomplished on foot, by horse or horse-drawn carriage. Later the bicycle and electric streetcar began to appear, leading to growth and development in former edge areas. The preeminence of the private automobile from the post-war period to today has shaped the transportation network and the development pattern of the Richmond region. A key question is, what will new transportation innovations mean for the future of how we choose to get around in the Richmond region?
Technological advancements have long played a key role in transforming how people get around. In the future, new technology is expected to lower transportation costs, reduce emissions, improve safety, and make vehicles more efficient and reliable. For these goals to be realized, any transportation innovation will need to be economically viable, overcome potential liability and regulatory issues, and gain acceptance by society at large.
The pace of technological innovation is accelerating rapidly. Transportation technologies that do not exist today are likely to emerge in the next few years. As a result, it is difficult to predict exactly how and when the regional transportation system will be significantly impacted. Also, what we may expect the impact of technologies to be today, could have radically different implications on the use and performance of the transportation system than what has been predicted. In order to contemplate the future of transportation, it is important to catalog emerging transportation technologies and explore their possible implications. As new information comes to light future metropolitan transportation plans will account for innovations.
297 Alternative Fuels and and potential owners regarding Autonomous and Electric Vehicles the relatively short travel range Connected Vehicles (40-60 miles) of most current As the Richmond region enters generation electric vehicles. Beginning in the 1980s, scien- the 21st century, alternative fuels A 2011 National Geographic tists and researchers have been and alternative fuel vehicles are online article, Range Anxiety: investigating the potential of once again gaining popularity Fact or Fiction, reports that replacing the human element in as the future of petroleum-de- “a survey conducted last year transportation by exploring the rived fuels becomes increasingly by the Consumer Electronics potential for vehicle automation, uncertain. Traditional internal Association found 71% of popularly referred to as driverless combustion engines are being respondents feared running out cars. In the last decade the rate of modified to burn alternative fuels of charge on the road—placing technological change in vehicle such as compressed natural gas range anxiety among the most automation has increased, and (CNG), biodiesel and ethanol/ common perceived disadvantages driverless cars are now being gasoline blends. Also consider of electric vehicles.” Clearly, this tested to varying degrees electricity, liquefied natural gas, can be a barrier to the acceptance across the county, including on propane, biogas, compressed air, of electric vehicles by a wider highways in Virginia. Predictions hydrogen fuel cells, or a hybrid segment of the general driving as to when driverless cars could approach. This allows current public. Presumably, as EV infra- take the road vary from five to generation vehicles to burn fuels structure (charging stations fifty years; however, the impact that are typically cleaner and specifically) becomes increas- of such technology on the trans- help to lower dependence on ingly common, range anxiety will portation system could be vast. petroleum-based sources. Some become less of an issue to poten- Nearly all major car manufac- of these alternative fuel sources tial buyers. turers, along with Google, are also use byproducts that have Potential Impact of Electric developing driverless vehicles. traditionally been disposed of Vehicles on the Richmond These vehicles use cameras, radar, or sources for which there are Region’s Transportation and laser sensors to maneuver currently surpluses or unused System along the roadway. Connected manufacturing capacity. automation includes three varia- • Reduced emissions from non- tions of a vehicle: In the last decade, electric vehicle point sources (i.e. vehicles) • Autonomous Vehicle: Operates technology has once again begun in isolation from other vehicles to gain popularity in the form of • Net emissions unknown; using internal sensors electric vehicles require hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs). electrical generation and • Connected Vehicle: HEVs contain both an electric associated emissions Communicates with nearby motor and an internal combus- vehicles and infrastructure tion engine, both of which are • Improved ground level air quality capable of producing sufficient • Connected Automated Vehicle: Leverages autonomous and energy to power the vehicle. In • Requires new investment in connected vehicle capabilities contrast, electric vehicles (EVs) dispersed charging stations utilize an electric motor as their and electric grid sole source of locomotive power. The National Highway • Electric vehicles can use Transportation Safety existing roadway infrastructure An issue that comes up regularly without major adjustments Administration (NHTSA) Transportation Innovations Transportation when reviewing EV literature is defines vehicle automation as the term “range anxiety”, refer- • Impact on Vehicle Miles having five levels: 298 ring to the worry of EV owners Traveled is inconclusive • No Automomation (Level 0): • Limited Self-Driving vehicles (v2v) or between vehicles The driver is in complete and Automation (Level 3): Vehicles sole control of the primary at this level of automation and infrastructure (v2i), and can vehicle controls – brake, enable the driver to cede full warn drivers of upcoming traffic steering, throttle, and motive control of all safety-critical congestion, accidents, or other power – at all times. functions under certain traffic emergencies. Connected vehicles or environmental conditions • Function-specific Automation and in those conditions to may help improve vehicle auto- (Level 1): Automation at this rely heavily on the vehicle mation and have similar road level involves one or more to monitor for changes in safety and capacity impacts, but specific control functions. those conditions requiring do not have the same potential Examples include electronic transition back to driver stability control or pre-charged control. The driver is expected to transform the transporta- brakes, where the vehicle to be available for occasional tion system by replacing drivers automatically assists with control, but with sufficiently altogether. braking to enable the driver to comfortable transition regain control of the vehicle time. The Google car is an The adoption of autonomous and or stop faster than possible by example of limited self-driving connected vehicles technologies acting alone. automation. Examples of combined functions include will have significant impacts on • Combined Function traffic jam pilot, automated travel behavior, safety, car-own- Automation (Level 2): This level parking, and highway autopilot ership, infrastructure, land-use, involves automation of at least systems. and development patterns. In two primary control functions designed to work in unison to • Full Self-Driving Automation addition to a wide range of relieve the driver of control of (Level 4): The vehicle is outcomes—from just a small those functions. An example of designed to perform all safety- improvement in safety of driving combined functions enabling critical driving functions and to a profound shift in travel a Level 2 system is adaptive monitor roadway conditions cruise control in combination for an entire trip. Such a design behavior—the impacts remain with lane centering or traffic anticipates that the driver uncertain. For example, auton- jam assist. will provide destination or omous vehicles could increase navigation input, but is not vehicle miles traveled (VMT) expected to be available for control at any time during by lowering the time-costs of the trip. This includes both travel and parking and by giving occupied and unoccupied increased mobility to children, vehicles such as closed the elderly, the blind, and campus driverless shuttles, valet parking in garages, and others restricted from operating ‘full automation’ in certain vehicles1. On the other hand, conditions. driverless cars could reduce VMT by enabling more car-sharing, • Driverless Automation (Level 5): The vehicle is able to better transit, and a shift from operate without any driver paying for vehicles and insurance present. Functions may include in lump sums to paying for each automated taxi services and trip or mile driven. car-share reposition systems. Potential Impact of Autono- mous and Connected A related technology for Vehicles on the Richmond ‘Connected Cars’, relies on WIFI Region’s Transportation System for communication between Innovations Transportation
Guerra, Erick. (2015). “Planning for Cars That Drive Themselves: Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Transportation Plans, and Autono- mous Vehicles”. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 1-15. 299 • Requires investments in the TNCs themselves are not provide taxicabs to meet certain pavement markings, signage, and signals for ease of directly providing transportation requirements, transportation recognition by vehicle sensors services, but are facilitating a network companies may be marketplace of such transactions. exempt from such requirements • Improved safety and reduced due to their only providing a collisions by removing human The services of transportation error marketplace and not actually network companies are becoming employing drivers or keeping • Increased capacity of existing increasingly popular because of automobiles. roadway network - as vehicles the convenience of requesting will be able to travel closer a ride by a mobile app, and the together competitive pricing of these • Reduced car ownership, services. Taxicabs can provide increase in car-sharing models similar services, but while most cities require companies which • Freight and transit industries as likely early adopters to offset labor costs
• Self-driving freight, transit, and personal vehicles may alter how people and goods move and where households and firms choose to locate
• Impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled unknown - potential to increase or decrease VMT
Transportation Network Companies
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft are currently impacting traditional models of procuring transportation from third parties. TNCs are based on a software platform which creates an online marketplace in which a driver registered with the company may offer their own labor and car to people who request a ride. TNCs maintain the platform, vet drivers to ensure regulatory compliance, and process financial transactions. It is important to Transportation Innovations Transportation note that this model differs from Photo Source: Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 300 traditional taxi services because • In Virginia, TNCs did not have lightweight and high-strength information exchange between a regulatory framework or legal authority to operate in materials, and reduce the size vehicles or drivers and roadways the state until February 2015. and increase the computing will become more integral in The regulations developed power of remote sensors. These improving safety and operations. by lawmakers, the Virginia remote sensors have numerous Department of Motor Vehicles, and TNCs require the following: road uses, from adaptive traffic signals to monitoring bridge • Pay $100,000 for a license to and road conditions and repair operate in the state needs. Adaptive signal control • Drivers must be at least 21 technology (ASCT) uses remote years old and properly licensed sensors and computing power to drive to respond to real time traffic. FHWA estimates that ASCT • Drivers must undergo a background check including systems can increase traffic a comprehensive review of throughput by 10 to 50 percent, history of felonies and a search depending on the corridor and of the sex offender and crimes type of previous signal system. against minors registry Less than one percent of the • The company or the driver signals in the United States must have insurance that currently employ this technology covers up to $1 million in (DVRPC LRTP). accident damage and they must abide by a zero-tolerance Virginia Tech Transportation policy regarding use of drugs and alcohol Institute manages the Virginia Smart Road, a full-scale, closed Potential Impact of TNCs on test-bed research facility owned the Richmond Region’s and maintained by VDOT. This Transportation System 2.2 mile, controlled access test track is built to FHWA stan- • Reduced car ownership, dards with two paved lanes, increase in car-sharing models three bridges including the • Competition with existing taxi Smart Road Bridge, and hosts companies and impact on a list of technological attributes pricing to control various variables • Competition with public transit during testing and provide 24/7 monitoring through its comput- • Integration of TNC-like er-equipped control center. The applications by public transit Virginia Smart Road assists in agencies observations of highway traffic and driver performance, lighting Smart Road/Smart and weather impacts, and serves Highway as QA/QC for the VDOT 511 Virginia system. As the Smart
Nanotechnology used in sensor Road technologies advance Innovations Transportation highway applications can results to assist in driving and enhance battery life, provide infrastructure performance, the 301 302 Travel Demand Modeling
Since the adoption of plan2035, staff has been working with VDOT on updating the Richmond/Tri-Cities (RTC) regional travel demand model (RTDM) for use as a tool for scenario planning. The model utilizes Citilabs software and CUBE Catalog modeling platform to create regional travel demand estimates for the Richmond and Tri-Cities metropolitan areas. The model produces forecasts for the Richmond 8-hour ozone maintenance area, as well as parts of Goochland, Powhatan and Dinwiddie counties, and all of Charles City and New Kent counties. The RTDM is a four-step model that includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode split and traffic assignment. The model also includes feedback between highway assignment and trip distribution.
In 2015, the Richmond/Tri-Cities travel demand model was updated from a 2008 base year and 2035 horizon year to 2012 base year and 2040 horizon year using socioeconomic data and forecasts developed by the Socioeconomic Data Workgroup. Due to the timing of the delivery of the updated RTDM, scenario planning efforts could not be initiated for plan2040.
Improvements to the RTDM will provide additional opportunities for data analysis and public participation in the plan2045 update process. The following are some of the possible uses of the updated model for plan2045: • Generate multiple regional transportation “scenarios” to aid in the plan visioning process • Determine future transportation infrastructure needs • Analyze the regional effects of different groups of transportation projects to aid in the project ranking and selection process • Provide improved future traffic congestion forecasts for the CMP network analysis • Validate other CMP data sources • Analyze driver route choices and better inform the scope of the CMP network
The RTDM model can assist in answering common questions about the Richmond region’s transportation system such as how many trips will people make, where will jobs and people locate and how will people travel.
303 Richmond TPO RTDM making transportation planning with projects from the plan2040 On-Call Consultant decisions. The on-call consultant Fiscally Constrained Plan, and will also assist staff in the use of developing a methodology for As part of the development of the RTDM for travel analysis corridor and sub-area modeling resources to integrate scenario supporting informed transporta- and analysis. These initial work planning into the RRTPO tion planning decisions. task orders will work to build a Unified Planning Work Program, foundation for needs analysis and an on-call consultant was Work task orders include a project identification in various selected and hired in September review of the RTDM for defi- elements of the RRTPO UPWP. 2015 to evaluate the RTDM ciencies and potential outputs provided by VDOT and to work in its current version and the with RRTPO staff on expanding development of methodology for the capabilities and uses of the a deficiency analysis, updating model. The on-call consultant the base year network to 2018 will provide technical assistance based on the RRTPO’s current in travel demand forecasting and Transportation Improvement scenario planning to help inform Program projects, updating staff and the RRTPO Board when the 2040 horizon year network Travel Demand Modeling Travel
map 8.29. richmond/tri-cities regional travel demand model network 304 Scenario Planning (SPC) contributed to discus- will not explore an extensive What is Scenario Planning? sions that allowed the RRTPO use of scenario planning, the to gain insights into scenario workshop identified possible FHWA defines scenario planning practices. Through this opportunities for implementing planning as “a process that can collaboration, the RRTPO was such practices, with a more help transportation professionals able to identify opportunities comprehensive approach to be to prepare for what lies ahead for implementing a strategic used in the plan2045 update. [and] provides a framework for scenario planning approach What are scenarios? developing a shared vision for within the next Metropolitan the future by analyzing various As described by FHWA, Transportation Plan update. The forces that affect communities.” 1 scenarios are narratives or sets next update, plan2045, will cover Scenario planning is an approach of assumptions that explore the a time horizon through 2045 that enhances traditional possible and plausible trajecto- and is scheduled for adoption in planning processes by helping ries of change. More specific to 2021. While the current update citizens and stakeholders, both public and private, understand how demographic and land-use changes could impact state, regional, and local transportation networks. The most important distinction within scenario planning is identifying land-use patterns as variables rather than static inputs. Through the analysis of future scenarios based on demographic, economic, political, or environmental vari- ables, citizens and stakeholders get a view of the possible future of their community. The ultimate goal of a scenario planning approach, then, is “a shared future vision that provides a framework for transportation priorities, goal, recommendations, and investments.” FHWA Peer Workshop
In November of 2014, the RRTPO participated in a scenario planning peer-workshop led by FHWA. With support from FHWA, the Hillsborough MPO for Transportation (Hillsborough MPO) and the Southwestern Demand Modeling Travel Pennsylvania Commission fig. 8.1. cover of the fhwa scenario planning peer exchange workshop report 305 fig. 8.2. fhwa six-phase scenario planning framework
scenario planning, they provide a planning, planners and stake- Phase 2: Where are we now? means of visioning or imagining holders are able to make better After developing the scope and the possible future changes of a decisions about the direction of engaging the necessary partners, region, as well as the different planning efforts; decisions that RRTPO will establish a baseline policies and investment options are more comprehensive and analysis, and identify important that support those changes. sensitive to environmental and trends. The Process human variables. Phase 3: Who are we and One of the most important Based on the FHWA Scenario where do we want to go? advantages in taking a scenario Planning Guidebook, a scenario Based on the geographic bound- approach to planning is the planning process will include six aries of the planning effort, in ability of the planning entity to key phases. Formulated as ques- this case the Greater Richmond customize or tailor the process to tions for participants to ponder, region, RRTPO will establish its unique conditions. Localities these phases help guide planning future goals and aspirations that are able to use scenario planning efforts towards the ultimate goal: speak to the values of the region. to create well-thought out a shared vision and framework Phase 4: What would the fu- visions of their possible future, for transportation priorities, ture look like? and compare those visions. goals, recommendations, and Because of these comparisons, investments. In this phase, RRTPO will use participants can discuss possible Phase 1: How should we get baseline analysis from Phase 2 to outcomes, identify and challenge started? create a snapshot scenario for the current assumptions about the region. Secondly, future goals and In this phase, RRTPO will future, and agree on the neces- aspirations from Phase 3 are used develop the scope of the planning sary tradeoffs. The final product, to create alternative development effort, and begin to identify and then, is a process of consensus scenarios that create a view of the
Travel Demand Modeling Travel engage the necessary partners. building that is more in-depth, possible futures of the region. locally relevant, and procedurally 306 actionable. Through scenario Phase 5: What impacts will scenario planning can and should the scenarios have? be used to better tailor a regional After creating the necessary planning efforts; one that places scenarios, RRTPO will develop a higher importance on public indicators that can be used participation. This section aims for comparison. As scenarios to make connections between are examines, analysis tools or previous planning or visioning models may be refined. exercises in the region, the goals Phase 6: How will we reach created from those exercises, and out future? the subsequent plans meant to achieve those goals. In this phase, RRTPO will use • Imagine Hillsborough 2040 the scenario comparisons to craft a comprehensive vision for • 2040 Transportation and Development Plan for the region. In addition, RRTPO Southwest Pennsylvania will be able to identify proper action steps for achieving this • The George Washington vision, and develop performance Regional Scenario Planning Study measures to assess and monitor progress. • Where Are We Growing? Land Use and Transportation in the As the RRTPO moves through Greater Richmond Region these phases of scenario planning, the following key • Richmond Regional Comprehensive Economic elements must be kept in mind. Development Strategy First, scenarios must be used to compare and contrast interac- • Building the Framework for tions between multiple factors, Regional Collaboration e.g., land use, transportation, • Sustainable RVA Action Plan and economic development. Second, the comparison of scenarios will inform analysis of possible impacts on transporta- tion networks. Third, comparison and analysis will lead to strat- egies that advance community or regional visions. And most important, the public shall be engaged throughout the entire process. Precedent Efforts
The following reports and plans represent successful scenario planning efforts both within and Demand Modeling Travel outside our region. They each offer a unique example of how 307 308 The Central Virginia Emergency Management Allicance
The Central Virginia Emergency Management Alliance (CVEMA) originated with the Central Virginia UASI, (Urban Areas Security Initiative) a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program focused on enhancing regional preparedness in major metropolitan areas. Funded by DHS/FEMA, the UASI program is intended to assist participating jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response, and recovery.
When funding for the Central Virginia UASI was cut, the Central Virginia Urban Area Working Group committed to continuing to build on the partnerships and regional coordination established under the UASI program, establishing a voluntary coalition of emergency management and public safety professionals from the 25 localities surrounding the Richmond-Petersburg metropolitan area (VDEM Region 1, plus Caroline, Cumberland, and Louisa Counties.)
While the character of these communities varies significantly, from rural to suburban to urban, they all possess critical infrastructure and key resources that are vital to the region. Since 2012, State Homeland Security Grant funding has supported a staff position at the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission to manage the work of the CVEMA to support and sustain existing institutional capacity, foster regional collaboration in emergency preparedness, and enhance the resilience of the region.
The CVEMA region includes: • The Counties of Amelia, Brunswick, Caroline, Charles City, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Essex, Goochland, Greensville, Hanover, Henrico, King and Queen, King William, Louisa, New Kent, Nottoway, Powhatan, Prince George, and Sussex • The Cities of Colonial Heights, Emporia, Hopewell, Petersburg, and Richmond • The military installations of Defense Supply Center Richmond, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Lee, and Fort Pickett are also located within the CVEMA region
CVEMA includes local, state, federal, private sector and non-profit represen- tatives with participants from multiple disciplines, including public safety, emergency management, fire/EMS, transportation, public works, social services, health districts, and others. State agencies that coordinate with the CVEMA
309 include the Virginia State Police, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The CVEMA meets monthly to develop projects to enhance regional preparedness, share information, discuss regional issues and priorities, and track the progress of projects already underway. The foundation of the work of the CVEMA is the under- The Fixing America’s Surface plan2040 relating to evacuation standing that emergencies, even Transportation Act (FAST Act) route plans and traffic diversion seemingly small ones, have the released its final rulemaking plans. potential to reach across juris- on May 27, 2016 and included dictional boundaries and impact under 23 CFR 450.322 (h): Secure Commonwealth the region as a whole and that Initiative Strategic Plan regional coordination allows for “The metropolitan transporta- better and more cost-effective tion plan should include a safety In the context of plan2040 for responses to events. The rela- element that incorporates or the Richmond region, Virginia’s tionships that make regional summarizes the priorities, goals, Secure Commonwealth Initiative coordination possible cannot be countermeasures, or projects Strategic Plan contains general created in the chaos of a disaster for the MPA contained in the and specific goals and strategies but must be carefully and consis- Strategic Highway Safety Plan for improving the security of tently built with time and effort required under 23 U.S.C. 148, as our transportation system. The and commitment. Because well as (as appropriate) emergency guiding principles for the Secure regional coordination requires relief and disaster preparedness Commonwealth Initiative staff to support and facilitate plans and strategies and policies Strategic Plan are the pillars of: the mission of the group, the that support homeland security CVEMA seeks funding annually (as appropriate) and safeguard • Deterrence: Actions to reduce for planning staff, hosted at the the personal security of all or eliminate threats against RRPDC. This provides the dual motorized and non-motorized physical, economic and benefit of giving every locality users” societal security equal access to the planning • Prevention: Actions to avoid an staff and allowing the emergency The collaboration of the CVEMA with the RRTPO will be detailed incident or to intervene to stop planning staff to take advantage an incident from occurring that further starting in plan2045 but The Central Virginia The Central of an existing and proven frame- would harm lives and property work for regional collaboration. some of the reports and planning efforts already underway inform 310 • Response: Actions addressing transportation system is a funda- • Ensure conformity of proposed short-term, direct effects transportation improvements of a disaster, to include the mental resource, vital to the with the current Continuity of execution of emergency regional and national supply Operations Plan that is in place operations plans and of chain, which enables this region in the Emergency Management activities to limit the loss of to prosper. Its protection is Division of VDOT life, personal injury, property damage and other unfavorable paramount. • Evaluate proposed outcomes transportation improvements The Richmond region’s trans- with reference to the • Recovery: The development, portation system consists of a VDOT’s geospatial database coordination, and execution number of key modes: aviation, documenting critical of service- and site- bicycle and pedestrian, maritime, transportation infrastructure restoration plans for impacted and key assets communities and the rail, highways, trucking, reconstitution of government busing, and public mass transit. • Evaluate proposed operations and services Together the various transpor- transportation improvements through individual, private- tation modes provide mobility with reference to the sector, nongovernmental and Richmond Marine Terminal public assistance programs for our population and the goods security plans and services that are essential to our economy and communities. • Evaluate proposed These guiding principles are Interdependencies exist between transportation improvements with reference to the Airport addressed across all levels of transportation and nearly every government and private industry Security Audits/Plans other sector of the economy. applicable to the Richmond and the citizenry. Emergency Consequently, a threat to the International Airport and other preparedness plans are based on transportation sector is also a general aviation facilities in the region needs assessments and are devel- threat to the many industries oped in collaboration with state that rely on it. Information and local emergency manage- about threats affecting transpor- Commonwealth ment officials and fire, law tation modes must be adequately of Virginia Critical enforcement, emergency medical addressed through communica- services, and public health Infrastructure tion and coordination among the Protection and services. Maximum coordina- multiple entities that use or rely Resiliency Strategic Plan tion and utilization of resources on these systems. requires integration of resources available at the local, state and In the context of plan2040, According to the U.S. Department federal levels. It should be noted efforts to improve security can be of Homeland Security (DHS) that elected officials have the legal focused on specific elements of National Infrastructure responsibility under the Virginia the statewide plan. As transporta- Protection Plan (NIPP), critical code for “local disaster mitiga- tion improvements are proposed infrastructure is defined as tion, preparedness, response, and and evaluated for funding, the “assets, systems and networks, recovery” to protect the health following security factors should whether physical or virtual, so and safety of all citizens. carefully be considered: vital to the United States that • Ensure conformity of proposed the incapacity or destruction of One of the most critical areas transportation improvements such assets, systems or networks of the region’s infrastructure with written policies and would have a debilitating impact procedures pertaining to is the transportation system, a the protection of critical on security, national economic complex and dynamic network transportation infrastructure security, public health or safety, Virginia The Central of highways, bridges, and or any combination of those tunnels. The Richmond region’s matters.” 311 provide a consistent, unifying structure for integrating both existing and future CI protection efforts. This information provides the Commonwealth with the core processes and mechanisms that enable all levels of govern- ment and private sector security partners to work together to implement CI protection in an effective and efficient manner.
Photo Source: CVEMA Emergency Preparedness In an effort to secure the nation’s more resilient to all hazards, critical infrastructure, DHS including natural and manmade The negative effects of natural has charged each state with disasters. Protection includes disasters such as hurricanes, developing a list of its Critical actions to mitigate the overall floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, Infrastructure (CI). In Virginia, risk to physical, cyber, and human winter storms and wildfires on the responsible entity is the CI assets, systems, networks, Virginia’s residents and economy Critical Infrastructure Protection functions, or their intercon- are increasing due to increased Program Manager within the necting links resulting from: urban development, industrial Governor’s Office of the Secretary exposure, injury, destruction, expansion, traffic congestion and of Public Safety and Homeland incapacitation, or exploitation. widespread use and transport Security. As mandated by the This includes actions to deter of hazardous materials. These General Assembly and the Code threats, mitigate vulnerabilities, factors also increase the risk of Virginia, the Commonwealth, and minimize consequences and consequences of man-made through the Secretary of Public associated with a terrorist attack emergencies such as, hazardous Safety and Homeland Security, or other incident. materials incidents, gas pipeline works with federal, state, and accidents, terrorist attacks, power local officials, as well as private Protection can include a wide failures, resource shortages and sector, and sector specific agencies range of activities such as environmental contamination. to develop a seamless, coordi- improving business protocols, Both international and domestic nated, security and preparedness hardening facilities, building terrorist groups and like-minded strategy with supporting imple- resiliency and redundancy, incor- individuals are a continuing mentation plans. This effort porating hazard resistance into threat to all critical infrastructure requires state agency participa- initial facility design, initiating sectors. tion and leadership, coupled with active or passive countermeasures, In Virginia, counties and inde- the development and sustain- installing security systems, lever- pendent cities have primary ment of strong public-private aging “self-healing” technologies, responsibility for emergency partnerships. promoting workforce security programs, or implementing cyber operations and will commit all The protection of thesecurity measures, among others. available resources to save lives and minimize property damage.
The Central Virginia The Central Commonwealth’s CI is essential The National Infrastructure for making Virginia and the Protection Plan and its comple- Should local emergency response capabilities be overwhelmed, 312 Nation safer, more secure, and mentary Sector-Specific Plans • Other hazard specific plans, developed by individual agencies to address specific incidents or pursuant to federal guidance, include a State Floodplain Management Plan, a Drought Assessment and Response Plan, and plans to address specific biological hazards such as pandemic flu and animal-borne diseases
Photo Source: Virginia Department of Emergency Management • Agency strategic plans • Commonwealth of Virginia outside assistance is available, focus on prioritized actions, Emergency Operations Plan including the functions of each either through mutual aid agree- (COVEOP), maintained by agency which are critical to ments with nearby jurisdictions, VDEM, including all annexes the emergency response and and appendices, is an all- members of the Commonwealth’s recovery operations of the discipline, all-hazards plan Statewide Mutual Aid Program, Commonwealth that establishes a single, or from the state through the comprehensive framework for • Agency continuity of Virginia Emergency Operations the management of statewide operations (COOP) plans incidents Center (VEOC). When state addresses an agency’s ability to resources are overwhelmed, the continue its essential functions • Hazard-specific operational in the event of a disruption. Governor may request federal plans, known as incident Plans include vital equipment, assistance under a Presidential annexes, address hazards to orders of succession and which the Commonwealth is disaster or emergency declara- lines of authority. They also at high risk, either in frequency tion. A planned and coordinated address the procedures for or impact. They include plans protecting, maintaining and response on the part of federal, for emergencies related to restoring essential functions, state and local officials in support nuclear power generation plant including those that are critical incidents, terrorism incidents, of responders in the field is to emergency response and hurricanes, tropical storms, critical to saving lives, protecting recovery operations public health threats like property, and restoring essential pandemic influenza, large-scale • The Commonwealth of services. hazardous-materials incidents, Virginia Critical Infrastructure technological hazards, and Emergency Management Protection and Resiliency earthquakes Program for the Strategic Plan support the National Infrastructure Commonwealth • COV Standard Hazard Protection Plan (NIPP) by Mitigation Plan identifies establishing a coordinated The strategies and objectives of hazards and analyzes the approach to national priorities, the Emergency Management potential impacts. The plan goals, and requirements for focuses on prevention and Program for the Commonwealth CI protection. The strategic reduction of the impacts are established in several plans plan requires the development of hazards and establishes of Sector Specific Plans to including: interim and long-term goals • Secure Commonwealth provide the means by which and objectives, strategies, Initiative Strategic Plan is a the NIPP is implemented programs and actions to avoid multi-year plan that sets the across all critical infrastructure long-term vulnerability to the overall course and direction of and key resources sectors hazards Commonwealth Preparedness, including the emergency management program, by Additional information is avail- defining its vision, mission, able and accessible to the general Virginia The Central goals, and objectives public on the state emergency www.vaemergency.com management website. 313 October 6, 2016
Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization