TC 09-25-06 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee
FROM: John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner " ""`
RE: September 25, 2006 Transportation Committee Meeting
DATE: September 15, 2006
The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday,
September 25, 2006 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107
North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The agenda for this meeting is as follows:
AGENDA
1. Traffic Calming in Subdivisions
2. Position on County Bus Service Expansions
3. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Activity Update
4. Article distribution
5. Other Business
Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting.
Attachments
JAB/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 9 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ITEM #1
Traffic Calming in Subdivisions
At the August 28, 2006 meeting of the Transportation Committee, staff briefed the Committee on a
request received from members of the Oakdale Crossing neighborhood for the County to request that
VDOT consider the neighborhood as part of its traffic calming program. The residents are concerned
about a high number of speeding vehicles moving through their neighborhood as they cut through
from Senseny Road to Route 50. A copy of that program manual is attached for your reference.
At the meeting, the Committee discussed at length what would be the requirements of the program
and the subsequent impacts on staff and VDOT. There was a concern that this application, while
likely deserving of a positive recommendation, could spur a high number of additional requests. It
was determined that staff should create some criteria for considering these applications before
reviewing them and ultimately recommending or not recommending them for Board of Supervisors
action.
Staff has compiled some fairly simple criteria that it feels should help control the flow of
applications without putting undue extra requirements on the citizens of the neighborhood. They are
as follows:
Summary of property and owners along the roadways in question accompanied by a
petition signed by a majority of those owners submitted to the County Transportation
Planner.
2. List of issues that are taking place, including key days and times to aid in county staff
evaluation of issue.
3. Staff will evaluate conditions as reported and complete a recommendation to the
Transportation Committee.
Item one creates a need for effort on the part of the applicant to gather the needed signatures and
information on property owners. This is also a requirement of the VDOT program and, as such, does
not ask the applicants to do work they would not already be completing.
Item two asks the applicants to list the issues they are observing and/or concerned about along with
days and times that these issues are most often observed. This aids staff if completing their
evaluation as required in item three.
It is staff's opinion that the effort required by these requirements would help keep the number of
applications to a reasonable level and provide the Committee with a framework within which they
can assess each application.
TRAFFIC CALMING GUIDE
FOR
LOCAL RESIDED: T IAL STREETS
Mobility Management Division
Virginia Department of Transportation
Richmond, Virginia
October 2002
PREFACE
Since the late 1980s, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has concerned
itself with neighborhood traffic problems on streets and roadways in the state's operated
and maintained highway systems.
The Restricting Through Trucks on Secondary Highways Policy, which was
adopted in September 1988, states in part that "the Commonwealth Transportation
Board, in response to a formal request by a local governing body, may prohibit or
restrict the use by through trucks of any part of a secondary highway".
2. The Control of Residential Cut -Through Traffic Policy, adopted in March 1989
and most recently revised in 1996, says in part that "VDOT will recognize the
problems associated with residential cut -through traffic and implement appropriate
measures wherever possible."
3. Pursuant to a 1997 General Assembly amendment to the Code of Virginia regarding
the installation and maintenance of "signs alerting motorists that children may be at
play nearby", VDOT implemented procedures effective July 1, 1997, that allows
counties to request "Watch for Children" signs.
4. Pursuant to a 1999 General Assembly amendment to the Code of Virginia regarding
the "maximum speed limits in certain residence districts, penalty", VDOT
implemented procedures on June 17, 1999, that allows local governing bodies to
request signs on local residential streets, collector streets, and minor arterials with a
posted speed limit of 35 mph or less advising motorists of a maximum punishment of
$200 for exceeding the speed limit.
5. The Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Streets, which was adopted in
June 2001, provides communities with a traffic management tool dealing specifically
with speeding, with the goal being to slow speeders in residential neighborhoods on
streets classified as local.
These five traffic management tools have been combined under the Department's
Residential Traffic Management Program. Neighborhoods, through their local
governing bodies, are encouraged to choose one or more of these tools to resolve
traffic problems on their local streets and highways. For more information contact the
local office of VDOT or the Department's Mobility Management Division at the address
below.
Mobility Management Division
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-2966
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
THE RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS .................................... 2
Initial Community Meeting............................................................... 2
BoardResolution..........................................................................
PlanDevelopment.........................................................................
Approval and Implementation..........................................................4
Evaluation................................................................................. 5
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES............................................................. 5
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ......................... 6
PHYSICAL MEASURES FOR TRAFFIC CALMING ...................................... 8
SpeedHump............................................................................... 8
Choker.......................................................................................
RaisedCrosswalk........................................................................
TrafficCircle................................................................................
CrosswalkRefuge........................................................................ 9
RaisedMedian Island ................................................................... 10
Chicane...................................................................................... 10
OPTIONS FOR COUNTIES..................................................................... 10
County�-Specific Modifications......................................................... 10
Point System for Prioritizing Projects (Optional) .................................. 11
FUNDING............................................................................................ 11
REFERENCES.................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX: IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE FOR
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ........................................... 14
TRAFFIC CALMING GUIDE FOR LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS
I. INTRODUCTION
In mid 2001, VDOT implemented the Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Streets
that provides communities with a traffic management tool dealing specifically with
speeding. The guide is based on the premise that the county and VDOT are partners in
addressing a speeding problem. For purposes of this guide, the goal of traffic calming
is to slow speeders in residential neighborhoods on streets classified as local. The
focus is on subdivision streets. Certain collector streets that have many of the
characteristics of local residential streets may also qualify for traffic calming measures.
It is important to note that traffic calming efforts generally slow traffic without restricting
access. Traffic calming measures are appropriate for slowing traffic when cut -through
traffic is not the problem; that is, neighborhoods typically do not qualify for the cut -
through traffic program when the majority of the traffic and speeding problems are
generated from within the neighborhood.
The county will initiate and take the lead role in coordinating the traffic calming process
and VDOT staff will provide technical support. The county and VDOT will determine
who is responsible for a particular task where the responsible agency is not specified.
For traffic calming, VDOT is represented by the local resident engineer, except in
Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudoun Counties where it is the district traffic engineer.
Although this guide is intended for existing streets only, there is concern about
preventing traffic problems from developing on new subdivision streets. In its process
for reviewing subdivision development plans, participating counties should identify and
address potential traffic calming as well as other traffic management concerns that may
result from a new development. The review process should ensure that the developer
of a new subdivision place emphasis on and address the need to design street
geometric concepts that make streets less desirable for speeding and cut -through
traffic. In the subdivision design review process, VDOT should also exert its
discretionary authority in applying geometric standards to discourage speeding and cut -
through traffic. The county should consider planning, enforcement, and transportation
together in a comprehensive approach to managing residential traffic.
Ideally, potential traffic calming concerns in new developments should be addressed
with roadway design geometry changes, especially roadway width (narrowing) and road
curvature. In lieu of or in addition to these geometric changes, traffic calming measures
that generally serve to narrow the travel way include pavement markings delineating
parking, shoulder, or bike lanes, traffic circles or roundabouts, chokers, crosswalk
refuges, and short medians. The county or subdivision developers should consult with
VDOT prior to submitting a plan specifying traffic calming measures on newly developed
streets
1
II. THE RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS
Initial Community Meeting
Board of Supervisors Resolution
with Support Data to VDOT
Traffic Calming Plan Development
Citizens, County, Police,
Fire, Rescue, VDOT
County and VDOT Approval
Of Recommended Plan
Implementation
Figure 1. The Residential Traffic Calming Process
A. Initial Community Meeting
The County and VDOT may employ a number of methods to publicize the traffic -
calming program, and more generally, residential traffic management tools.
VDOT, in cooperation with County staff, is available for an initial community
2
meeting. All-inclusive participation (community leaders and residents, local
politicians, law enforcement, fire, and emergency personnel, and county and
VDOT staff) is essential for proper problem solving. Presentations made at the
meeting should enhance the community's understanding about the traffic calming
process, including the amount of community involvement required and the
advantages and disadvantages of traffic calming. The meeting is an opportunity
for the County and VDOT to learn more about the concerns of the community as
well as to help the community assess its traffic concerns. County staff arranges
the meeting and determines its size and scope. At this initial meeting, all
participants can work together to develop a plan for continuous involvement by
and communication with the community during the traffic calming process.
B. Board Resolution with Support Data Requirements
The Board of Supervisors initiates the traffic calming process by forwarding to
VDOT a resolution that requests the initiation of a traffic calming project along
with the following information:
• Street functional classification
• Average daily traffic volumes
• Average speed
• Description of petition area
• Description of impacted areas
• Petition with signatures
The support data provided by the county should verify that the following
requirements are met:
1. Eligible Streets: Local residential streets are eligible for traffic
calming provided the posted speed limit does not exceed 25 mph. A local
residential street provides direct access to abutting residences and serves
only to provide mobility within the neighborhood. Traffic on these streets
is expected to be entering or exiting from the residences.
Certain residential collector streets, although classified as collector roads,
have the characteristics of local residential streets. Collector streets may
be considered for traffic calming measures if they meet the following
conditions:
• 25 mph posted speed limit
• Two-lane roadway
• Not a primary access to commercial or industrial sites
• Minimum of 12 dwellings fronting the street per 1,000 feet of
roadway, including both sides
Eligible streets are functionally classified as a local or collector street by
VDOT.
3
2. Documented speeding problem: The average speed is at least 5
mph over the speed limit. Accordingly, the average speed should be at
least 30 mph to qualify.
3. Petition for traffic calming: Once the proposed street meets the
above technical criteria, a petition requesting traffic calming and signed by
at least 75 percent of the total occupied households within the petition
area must be obtained. The petition area includes residences on the
proposed street section, and residences on all streets that have major
access onto the proposed study street section. The county, in cooperation
with VDOT, will define the petition area and provide a petition form. The
impacted area typically includes the surrounding collector or arterial roads
but should be defined by the county in cooperation with VDOT. The
county will verify that the petition is valid.
The resolution and appropriate attachments should be sent to VDOT.
C. Plan Development
The traffic calming plan should be developed by a group that includes
representatives from the petition area, impacted area, homeowner associations,
the board of supervisors, local transportation/planning staff, police, fire, rescue,
VDOT, and others as appropriate.
Because the impact of traffic calming measures will extend beyond the petition
area, it is important to involve representatives from the larger, impacted area.
The Board of Supervisors and homeowner associations are responsible for
scheduling and facilitating meetings. VDOT staff will provide technical support
and advise the community of the potential advantages and disadvantages of
calming measures. Educating participants about residential traffic management
and traffic calming is key to a successful program.
The proposed plan shall be presented to residents at a public meeting, or
through some other method such as a petition, to inform and measure support for
the plan. This will allow the Board of Supervisors to assess whether community
support exists for the proposed measures.
D. Approval and Implementation
The final plan, and method of implementation must be jointly approved by the
Board of Supervisors and VDOT. The final plan must identify the source of
funding for implementation.
4
E. Evaluation
A follow-up evaluation should be performed to ensure that the traffic calming
measures are effective. The Board of Supervisors in cooperation with VDOT will
determine the method to disseminate the findings and recommendations to those
involved in the plan development and obtain feedback as appropriate.
If the county decides to remove the traffic calming measures, then funding for
removal should be from the same funding sources as implementation. If an
unforeseen safety problem develops, VDOT may decide to remove the traffic
calming measures.
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Community awareness and education is an important first step. The residents should
be made aware of the speeding concerns and should be reminded of the importance of
driving safely in their neighborhood. VDOT staff is available to speak to homeowner
associations about traffic calming measures and to help raise community awareness
about advantages, disadvantages, costs, and funding options.
Enforcement is traditionally the primary means of addressing speeding problems.
Local police officers monitor and enforce the posted speed limit. Enforcement efforts
should be undertaken as much as possible prior to implementation of traffic calming
measures.
Non-physical measures are low-cost measures that do not physically restrict driver
maneuvers, such as pavement markings to narrow travel lanes. (See Figure 2.)
Physical measures are designed to reduce speed by creating a vertical or horizontal
shift in the roadway or travel lanes. (See Figure 2 and Section V.)
Alternative actions should be considered when traffic volumes on the study street
exceed 4,000 vehicles per day. A network analysis is suggested to thoroughly examine
the road network in the area and identify potential improvements on major routes that
may provide relief to the "study" street.
61
IV. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Traffic volumes on the residentiai street wiii determine the appropriate traffic calming
measures as follows:
Fewer than 600 vehicles per day
— education
— enforcement
— non-physical measures
• 600- 4,000 vehicles per day
— education
— enforcement
— non-physical measures
— physical measures
More than 4,000 vehicles per day
— education
— enforcement
— alternative actions only
— no traffic calming measures
NON-PHYSICAL MEASURE
O
4
SPEED HUMP
PAVEMENT MARKING/LANE NARROWING
PARKING
PARKING
I f
TRAFFIC CIRCLE
CHOKER
RAMP UP
y
RAMP UP
RAISED CROSSWALK
RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND
MEDIAN
sop
ONE WAY
CROSSWALK REFUGE
CHICANE
Figure 2. Typical Physical and Non -Physical Traffic Calming Measures
V. PHYSICAL MEASURES FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
The following measures have been effective in slowing traffic in neighborhoods. To
ensure minimum delay in emergency response time, the installation of speed humps
and raised crosswalks is discouraged on major emergency routes. Costs are provided
only as rough estimates; actual construction costs will depend on the number of
measures constructed, related signing and pavement markings, and the extent of
aesthetic provisions. The estimated costs are derived from Institute of Transportation
Engineering's Traffic Calming State of the Practice and revised based on VDOT's
experience with some of the measures. Physical measures are shown in Figure 2.
More details are provided in the "Implementation Guide for Traffic Calming Measures" in
the Appendix.
A. Speed Hump
Description: a raised hump in the roadway with a parabolic top, extending across
the road at right angles to the traffic.
Placement: spacing should be about 500 feet, clearly visible for 200 feet, and
placed at least 200 feet from intersections; should include warning signs.
Advantages: reduces speeds.
Disadvantages: increases emergency response
vehicles and buses, potential drainage problems
maintenance costs.
Estimated cost: $2,000-$3,000 per speed hump.
B. Choker
times and slows emergency
. increases noise, increases
Description: a physical constriction built at the curb side of the roadway to
reduce the width of the travel lane.
Placement normal turning radii should be accommodated; should include
advance warning signs and delineation.
Advantages: reduces speeds, provides parking protection, shortens pedestrian
crossing distance.
Disadvantages: potential drainage problems, maintenance costs.
Estimated cost: $7,000410,000 per pair.
E:3
C. Raised Crosswalk
Description: a raised hump in the roadway with a 10 -foot flat top, extending
across the road at right angles to the direction of traffic flow.
Placement: where significant number of pedestrians cross the roadway; should
include advance warning signs.
Advantages: reduces speeds, provides improved visibility and safety for
pedestrians.
Disadvantages: increases emergency response times and slows emergency
vehicles and buses, potential drainage problems, increases noise, increases
maintenance costs.
Estimated cost: $2,500-$8,000 per raised crosswalk. The higher estimate
includes the construction of two curb ramps.
D. Traffic Circle
Description: elevated area in the middle of the intersection that provides circular,
counterclockwise traffic flow.
Placement: street grades approaching the intersection should not exceed 10
percent and entrances should be a minimum of 100 feet away on all approaches.
Advantages: reduces speeds, reduces left -turn accidents, can be visually
attractive.
Disadvantages: placement of circle may reduce parking spaces and require
additional right of way.
Estimated cost: $3,500-$15,000 per circle.
E. Crosswalk Refuge
Description: a raised median in the middle of the roadway with a cut provided for
the crosswalk.
Placement: where a significant number of pedestrians cross the roadway.
Advantages: reduces speeds, provides refuge for pedestrians crossing roadway.
Disadvantages: increases maintenance costs.
Estimated cost: $5,000415,000 per crosswalk refuge.
X,
F. Raised Median Island
Description: a raised median in the middle of the roadway.
Placement: should accommodate normal turning radii near intersections where
applicable; placed in the middle of the roadway with proper warning signing and
delineation.
Advantages: reduces speeds, shortens pedestrian crossing time and distance.
Disadvantages: drainage problems, maintenance costs, expensive.
Estimated cost: $5,000-$15,000 per island.
G. Chicane
Description: alternating constrictions built curbside to create a bend in a formerly
straight street, forcing vehicles to negotiate the narrowed street in a snake -like
fashion.
Placement: should accommodate normal turning radii; sets are to be placed
400-600 feet apart; should include advance warning signing and delineation;
used only on roadways divided with a median.
Advantages: reduces speeds, shortens pedestrian crossing time and distance.
Disadvantages: limited to divided roadways, potential drainage problems,
maintenance costs.
Estimated cost: $5,000-$15,000 per set.
VI. OPTIONS FOR COUNTIES
A. County -Specific Modifications
The Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Streets is applicable to all
counties. However, if a particular county believes that minor modifications are
necessary to serve the needs of its citizens, modifications may be requested.
The request should be addressed to VDOT.
VDOT has received requests to use All Way Stop Control (AWSC) as a traffic
calming measure. AWSC is acceptable as a measure under the "County -
Specific Modifications" provision if the criteria defined in the "All Way Stop
Control Criteria for Traffic Calming" in Chapter V of the Appendix are satisfied.
10
B. Point System for Prioritizing Projects (Optional)
The point system in Table 1 is provided as an option for counties to use in
prioritizing projects eligible for physical measures. The point system is based on
speeds, volumes, and accident history. VDOT will work with the locality to help
develop a county -specific method of prioritization.
Table 1. Optional Point System for Prioritizing Projects
Speed Related Accidents
Traffic Volume
Speeds
Accidents /
Year
Points
Average
Daily Traffic
Points
Average
Seed
Points
1
1.0
600-1,000
0.5
30-34
1.0
2
2.0
1,001-3,000
1.0
35-39
2.0
3+
3.0
3,001+
1.5
40+
3.0
VII. FUNDING
Traffic calming measures may be funded using one of the following:
100 percent exclusively county -generated or other funds (no VDOT funding).
• Revenue sharing funds with 50 percent exclusively county -generated or other
funds and 50 percent VDOT funds.
• Secondary road construction funds; a maximum of 2 percent of the county's
secondary road construction funds can be used with a three-year limit on its
accumulation.
Maintenance will be funded through the county's VDOT secondary road maintenance
funds. Implementation and maintenance of optional landscaping will be provided by the
community
11
REFERENCES
For further information on traffic calming, see the following sources.
1. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices For
Streets and Highways (MUTCD), Washington, D.C., 1988. (The Millennium Edition
of the Manual, which is scheduled for release in 2001, will replace the 1988 version.
For information, see the following web page: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-
proposed2000.htm.
2. Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration. Traffic
Calming: State of the Practice, Washington, D.C., August 1999. (Available for
downloading at http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm#tcsoP .)
3. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Traffic Engineering Handbook, Fifth Edition,
Chapter 9, "Traffic Calming Applications", Washington, D.C., 1999.
4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Transportation Planning Handbook, Second
Edition, Chapter 17, "Traffic Calming", Washington, D.C., 1999.
5. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Guidelines for the Design and Application of
Speed Humps, A Recommended Practice, Washington, D.C., 1997.
6. Pat Noyes & Associates. Traffic Calming Primer, Boulder, CO, 1998.
7. South Western Regional Planning Agency. Traffic Calming Toolbox, Traffic
Calming. Devices, Applications, & Program Management, Norwalk, CT, June 1998.
8. Texas Transportation Institute. Handbook of Speed Management Techniques,
Research Report 1770-2, College Station, TX, September 1998.
9. Virginia Transportation Research Council. An Operating Guide for the Control of
Residential Cut -Through Traffic, B. H. Cottrell, Jr., Charlottesville, VA, 1990.
(Appendix contains "Guidelines for Use of Speed Humps".)
10. Washington State Department of Transportation, A Guidebook for Residential Traffic
Management, Olympia, WA, 1994.
12
Traffic Calming Internet Web Sites
1. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has a comprehensive internet web site at:
http://www.ite.org/traffic/index.htm.
The site (which contains the downloadable Reference # 4 above) includes an
overview of traffic calming and calming measures, a searchable library of
references including a topical index (many of which are downloadable), a listing
of other traffic calming web sites, and downloadable seminar materials
(PowerPoint presentation).
2. The City of Portland has an excellent internet web site describing its traffic calming
program at:
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic Management/trafficcalming/
13
APPENDIX
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE FOR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
PAGE
Chapter I Introduction.............................................................................. 15
Chapter II Do's of Traffic Calming.............................................................. 16
Chapter III Design and Installation............................................................. 17
A. Key Points with Design
B. Design Aspects of Residential Traffic Calming Measures
C. Do's of the Design Process
D. Checklist for the Installation of Residential Traffic Calming Measures
Chapter IV Residential Traffic Calming Measures .......................................... 21
Chapter V All Way Stop Control Criteria for Traffic Calming................................30
14
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of residential traffic management is to address traffic problems in
residential neighborhoods. Traffic calming is intended to reduce speeds without
restricting access. This "Implementation Guide for Traffic Calming Measures" will:
• Explain the difference between traffic control devices and traffic calming
measures
• Give lessons learned in the planning process
• List things to consider before and during measure installation
• Show typical design standards and specifications
Traffic control devices are frequently confused with traffic calming Treasures. Traffic
control devices are signs, signals, and markings that are designed to regulate, warn,
guide, and inform. Traffic calming measures are usually physical measures in the
roadway used to slow traffic. Although a traffic control device and a traffic calming
measure could share the goal of slowing motorists, the purpose of a traffic control
device is to attempt to communicate, while the traffic calming measure is a part of the
design of the street or intersection. A traffic control device may, however, supplement a
traffic calming measure.
CHAPTER II
DO'S OF TRAFFIC CALMING
1. Quantify the problem. Identify the real problem(s). Speed, volume and noise are
frequent complaints, but often the real problem on a street is just one of these.
Undertake traffic counts, speed studies, and accident data analyses.
Remember that you are hearing mostly from people who are dissatisfied. There are
other aspects to the situation that you are not likely hearing about.
2. Involve the community. Do not develop or implement a plan without the
community's involvement. No matter how technically sound a plan might be, it will
not work as well if the community is not involved.
3. Educate decision makers. Avoid uninformed (often political or emotional)
decisions.
4. Look at the arterial network first. No one uses a short-cut unless there's a reason
to. The reason is often congestion on nearby arterials.
5. Favor self -enforcing measures. "Self -enforcing" measures maintain a 24-hour
presence and are effective without police enforcement.
15
6. Consult with all services. Police, fire, ambulance, transit, sanitation services, and
snow plow operators should be involved from the beginning.
7. Sign and delineate. Install appropriate warning signs, and delineate the traffic
calming measures.
8. Implement measures on an areawide basis. Avoid creating more problems or
relocating a problem. Always consider the impacts on adjacent local streets and
arterial roads. Identify groups of measures to be implemented in stages if funding
for the entire transportation management plan cannot be secured at once.
9. Monitor and follow-up. Report back to the community as to the success of traffic
calming measures. This helps to justify additional expenditures and enhances the
credibility of the traffic management program.
Implement measures as demonstrations if decided by consensus.
10. Remember that everybody drives differently. Some people will drive around or
over some calming measures. Some people don't understand traffic circles, no
matter how well they are signed.
Some people resist change.
11. Expect problems. Some problems (such as regional traffic issues) cannot be
addressed by a neighborhood wide plan.
Some problems cannot be resolved at a reasonable cost. For example, it may
simply be too expensive to acquire property to widen an intersection or a road.
Refer other problems to the appropriate agency, such as the planning department,
the police, etc.
W.
CHAPTER III
DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
A. Key Points with Design
1. Some designers appear to focus solely on traffic calming measures rather
than using traditional traffic management and traffic calming measures in
combination.
2. Speed humps are an effective means of speed reduction but are often
opposed by bus operators and emergency services. In some situations, it
should be possible to achieve a sufficiently effective scheme without the need
for vertical deflections.
3. While speed humps slow traffic, they can attract criticism because of the
inconvenience, discomfort, and vehicle damage.
4. Narrowing travel lanes can be very effective, particularly when the two-way
traffic volume is high. Lanes need adequate signing and marking.
5. If systematic monitoring takes place, it will be easier to decide which
measures are appropriate for different circumstances.
B. Design Aspects of Residential Traffic Calming Measures
1. Visibility. Measures should be clearly visible day and night. Reflectors,
buttons, highly reflective paint, or illumination should be used as appropriate
to ensure visibility. Additionally, traffic calming measures should not be
placed where drivers do not have adequate stopping sight distance for the
operating speed of the road.
2. Signing. Advance signs should warn motorists of upcoming traffic calming
measures and, to the extent possible, guide the motorists' response to such
measures.
3. Streetscape. Traffic calming measures should blend naturally with the
streetscape and enhance the appearance and feel of the street. They should
alert drivers that they are in or entering a residential place.
4. Design vehicles. Traffic calming measures should be designed to
accommodate emergency service and other large vehicles at an acceptable
speed.
5. Maintenance. Long-term maintenance needs should be anticipated in the
design process and minimized to the extent possible. Some jurisdictions
contract with the neighborhood to maintain plantings or simply eliminate
landscaping in the absence of a willingness on the part of residents to
participate.
17
6. Parkin On -street parking in residential areas creates a sense of activity;
some jurisdictions encourage on -street parking for this reason. However, in
some instances, on -street parking also creates sight line restrictions, which
may be unsafe for drivers who are speeding.
7. Speed control. Traffic calming measures should be located and designed to
limit speeds in residential areas.
C. Do's of the Design Process
1. Consider installing temporary traffic calming measures and monitor them for a
period of time before installing the permanent measures.
2. Have an organized program including public involvement with plans and
policies approved and supported by the local government.
3. Involve the local service agencies, including fire, police, and emergency
medical service personnel from the beginning.
4. Consult with fire department and EMS personnel to develop the design,
particularly with speed humps and traffic circles. Set up traffic circles with
cones and have the fire trucks and other emergency vehicles drive around
them. This will help determine what radius is best for the types of emergency
vehicles found in different areas. The same process can be used in the
design of speed humps.
5. Review traffic patterns in the neighborhood as a whole. Avoid solving the
problem on one neighborhood street by shifting the traffic to another
neighborhood street.
6. Make certain that all signing and channelization are in accordance with the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the Supplement to the
MUTCD, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
7. Check sight distances for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Sight distance
is to meet the requirements of the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets.
8. Check sight distances by visiting the site before and after installation. Do
parked cars obstruct sight distances? Does landscaping (now or after it
grows) or other features obstruct sight distance?
9. Review the on -street parking. Will parked cars block access of emergency
vehicles through or around the proposed neighborhood traffic calming
measures? Add additional no parking zones where needed.
10. Review the site for utility conflicts. Is there a fire hydrant? Does it need to be
moved? Are there utilities in the way?
11.Check the storm water drainage. Will the storm drain system need to be
moved or revised? Can the runoff get through or around the measure?
12.When installing traffic calming measures on streets without curbs,
supplemental features (e.g., bollards, delineators) may be necessary to keep
vehicles within the traveled way.
13.Traffic calming measures may need to be adjusted on streets with grades of
greater than 10 percent.
14.Traffic calming measures should be installed on curving, winding roads with
limited sight distance only if reduced speed limits and adequate warning signs
are used in conjunction with the measures.
15.Traffic calming measures should be away from driveways.
D. Checklist for the Installation of Residential Traffic Calming Measures
As a minimum, the following items should be reviewed by the design professional
for each residential traffic calming measure installation:
Geometrics
— Turning radius
— Horizontal and vertical alignment
— Super elevation
— Major geometric features such as sidewalks, curbs, etc.
— Roadway width
— Sight distances
Safety
— Channelization
— Illumination
— Signing
— Clear zone (the total roadside border area starting at the edge of the travel
way available for safe use by errant vehicles)
— Crosswalk locations
Utilities
— Water and sewer
— Franchise utilities (such as gas, power, telephone, etc.)
— Storm drainage
— Location of hydrants
19
Design Vehicles
— Local emergency vehicle characteristics
— Minimum design vehicle - bus, single -unit truck, or passenger car
— Public transit and school bus stops and routes
— Bicycles and wheelchairs
Other
— Landscaping
— Pedestrians and bicycles
— Access for the mobility impaired
— Parking
— Mail delivery routes
— Emergency access
20
CHAPTERIV
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
21
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE
Figure A-1. NON-PHYSICAL MEASURE
PAVEMENT MARKING / LANE NARROWING
NOTES:
9'
TYPICAL
DETAIL
Edge Hatching
Edge of
Varies
1) Markings shall be in accordance with the MUTCD, VDOT's Road and Bridge
Standards and Specification, and Road Design Manual, Sec A5.
2) Narrowing Design Options:
a) Hatching
b) Parking Lanes
c) Bike Lanes
3) The amount of hatching as well as widths, lengths and spacing to be determined by the
Engineer. Centerline hatching optional.
4) Travel lanes not to be less than 9' in width.
5) Engineer to modify design to accommodate field conditions while conforming to
AASHTO publications and acceptable engineering practices.
Virginia Department of Transportation
22
Rev. 2001
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE
Figure A-2. SPEED HUMP
.I
100' Advance Warning Markings (Optional)
PLAN VIEW
---
C.
SEE
CROSS
SECTION
�y
'
`
12" Reflective
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
White Stripes
EXISTING GUTTER
SIDEWALK
CURB
I-
12" Reflective White Stripes
p a o
TAPER
12"
CURBFACE
TACK COAT
EDGE DETAIL
rN TYP' 1.T' 2.3'• 2.T' 2.9 3.D..
w V
CROSS SECTION
NOTES:
1) Signs and Markings shall be in accordance with the MUTCD & ITE practices.
2) Advance signing at each location is optional when part of an area wide scheme.
3) Cross-section shows approximate elevation for 3" (maximum) speed hump.
4) Design Options:
a) 22' section (See Raised Crosswalk for cross-section.)
5) Speed Humps shall not be placed over manholes, watergates, junction chambers, etc.
6) Speed Humps must be placed at locations approved by Engineer.
7) Engineer to modify design and location to accommodate field conditions (ex. drainage)
while conforming to VDOT's Road and Bridge Standards and Specification manuals, AASHTO
publications and acceptable engineering practices.
Virginia Department of Transportation
PAI
Rev. 2001
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE
Figure A-3. CHOKER
n
O
Mountable Standard
4" Curb
Yellow Reflective
Pavement Marker (Optional)
NOTES:
1) Signs and Markings shall be in accordance with the MUTCD.
SIGNING
NARROWS W5-1
2) Advance signing at each location is optional when part of an area wide scheme.
3) Landscaping designs, if any, to be determined by the community and approved by the
Engineer. Sight distance shall not be impacted by landscaping. Fixed objects shall not be
placed in any portion of the measures that are within the clear zone.
4) The transition of the approach curb, and accompanying raised pavement markers, shall be
in conformance to the design speed.
5) Design Options:
a) Intersection or Mid -block
b) One -side or Two -side
c) Combined with Raised Crosswalk
6) Engineer to modify design and location to accommodate field conditions (ex. drainage)
while conforming to VDOT's Road and Bridge Standards and Specification manuals,
AASHTO publications and acceptable engineering practices.
Virginia Department of Transportation
24
Rev. 2001
Raml
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE
Figure A-4. RAISED CROSSWALK
N � r
d M6 M
<
-0•• Crosswalk
TyP. 2.3'• 2.T' 2.9'• 3.0..
CROSS SECTION AA
NOTES:
1) Signs and Markings shall be in accordance with the MUTCD.
2) Advance signing at each location is optional when part of an area wide scheme.
3) Cross-section shows approximate elevation for 3" (maximum) raised crosswalk.
4) Design Options: can be combined with choker.
5) Raised Crosswalks should be located mid -block (edge of ramp at least 20' from
intersection) and shall not be placed over manholes, watergates, function chambers, etc.
6) Raised Crosswalk material and placement to be approved by Engineer.
7) Engineer to modify design to accommodate field conditions (ex. drainage and curb cuts)
while conforming to VDOT's Road and Bridge Standards and Specification manuals,
AASHTO publications and acceptable engineering practices.
Virginia Department of Transportation
25
Rev. 2001
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE
Figure A-5. TRAFFIC CIRCLE
Optional
Non -Mountable
Curb --.
18' Diameter
2' apron
NOTES:
W1-8 T
Mountable
Standard 4" Curb
M
Fill w/ Sod or
Seed & Mulch (Optional)
y
L A
Centerline and Yellow Reflective
Pavement Marker (Optional)
1) Signs and Markings shall be in accordance with the MUTCD.
2) Advance signing at each location is optional when part of an area wide scheme.
3) Landscaping designs, if any, to be determined by the community and approved by
the Engineer. Sight distance shall not be impacted by landscaping. Fixed objects shall
not be placed in any portion of the measures that are within the clear zone.
4) Use of Stop or Yield Sign as determined by the Engineer.
5) Engineer to modify design to accommodate field conditions (ex drainage) and
available ROW while conforming to VDOT's Road and Bridge Standards and
Specification manuals, AASHTO publications and acceptable engineering practices.
Virginia Department of Transportation
26
Rev. 2001
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASU"
Figure A-6. CROSSWALK REFUGE
ti a
N O
M O
Q M �
2T
l
Min.
11'
Min.
Crosswalk width 6' min. std.
Mountable Standard 4" Curb
-> Yellow Reflective Pavement Marker (Optional)
NOTES:
1) Signs and Markings shall be in accordance with the MUTCD.
2) Advance signing at each location is optional when part of an area wide scheme.
3) Landscaping designs, if any, to be determined by the community and approved by the
Engineer. Sight distance shall not be impacted by landscaping. Fixed objects shall not be
placed in any portion of the measures that are within the clear zone.
4) Design Options:
a) Intersection or Mid -block.
b) Combined with Raised Crosswalk.
5) The transition of the approach curb, and accompanying raised pavement markers shall be
in conformance to the design speed.
6) Engineer to modify design and location to accommodate field conditions (ex. drainage)
while conforming to VDOT's Road and Bridge Standards and Specification manuals,
AASHTO publications and acceptable engineering practices.
Virginia Department of Transportation
27
Rev. 2001
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE
Figure A-7. RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND
P �
P
Mountable Standard 4" Curb
;P Yellow Reflective Pavement Marker (Optional)
NOTES:
1) Signs and Markings shall be in accordance with the MUTCD.
2) Landscaping designs, if any, to be determined by the community and approved by the
Engineer. Sight distance shall not be impacted by landscaping. Fixed objects shall not be
placed in any portion of the measures that are within the clear zone.
3) The transition of the approach curb, and accompanying raised pavement markers, shall be
in conformance to the design speed.
4) Engineer to modify design and location to accommodate field conditions (ex. Island
length and drainage) while conforming to VDOT's Road and Bridge Standards and
Specification manuals, AASHTO publications and acceptable engineering practices.
Virginia Department of Transportation
28
Rev. 2001
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE
Figure A-8. CHICANE
E
Mountable
Standard 4" Curb
o0
MEDIAN
?'
4'
Minn
JONE
- W AY Yp�
11'
/
Min. �.
4'
Min.
DRAINAGE CHANNEL (IF NEEDED)
5W1-5L
VANCE SIGNING
Yellow Reflective Pavement Marker (Optional)
NOTES:
1) Signs and Markings shall be in accordance with the MUTCD.
2) Advance signing at each location is optional when part of an area wide scheme.
3) Landscaping designs, if any, to be determined by the community and approved by the
Engineer. Sight distance shall not be impacted by landscaping. Fixed objects shall not be
placed in any portion of the measures that are within the clear zone.
4) The transition of the approach curb, and accompanying raised pavement markers, shall be
in conformance to the design speed.
5) Engineer to modify design and location to accommodate field conditions (ex.drainage)
while conforming to VDOT's Road and Bridge Standards and Specification manuals,
AASHTO publications and acceptable engineering practices.
Virginia Department of Transportation Rev. 2001
29
CHAPTER V
ALL WAY STOP CONTROL CRITERIA FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
General Criteria
1. As described in Section VI. A. of the Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential
Streets, the County must request and VDOT must agree to the use of All Way
Stop Control (AWSC) as a traffic calming measure as a county -specific
modification.
2. The use of AWSC must result from the application of the residential traffic
calming process outlined in Section II of the Traffic Calming Guide for Local
Residential Streets and be included as a part of the traffic calming plan that is
developed.
3. AWSC should be used in combination with other traffic calming measures in the
traffic calming plan.
Site Specific Criteria
4. The volume criteria for eligibility of AWSC at an intersection are a minimum of
1,000 vehicles per day entering the intersection and a 3:1 or less ratio of main
street to minor street volume measured in vehicles per day. This ratio is
equivalent to a minimum of 25 percent of the total volume entering from the
minor street. These criteria serve to provide some sense of balanced flow
between the intersecting streets and to avoid intersecting streets with extremely
imbalanced volumes.
5. AWSC intersections should be at least 1,200 feet apart.
6. Geometrics such as sight distance and grade must be considered as a factor in
determining if AWSC is appropriate.
7. The proposed use of AWSC must be approved by the District Traffic Engineer
(DTE). The DTE or his designee should have been a part of the traffic calming
plan development. The DTE and the Resident Engineer should cooperate and
coordinate on this effort.
30
ITEM #2
County Bus Service
At the May 15, 2006 meeting of the Transportation Committee the committee made the
recommendation that transit service into the county be funded at a level of $80,000 and increase fares
to $1.00. Staff has since been working with the city to determine the needed reductions in service to
meet that budgeted amount. Difficulties in obtaining accurate and detailed cost data, particularly as
regards grant coverage, have led to delays in this process. Staff continues to work with City and
County officials to get this issue resolved.
In addition, staff has learned that the City Transit Department needs the County to make a decision
on potential enhancements to that system in the form of new routes. This is in regards to an
expansion grant applicable to the Route 11 corridor north toward the Clearbrook area. If there is not
a desire for enhancements at this time staff needs authorization to draft a letter to the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation stating that preference.
ITEM #3
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Activity Update
There are a number of initiatives underway at the MPO about which the committee should know.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan
On August 22, 2006, the consultant and members of the plan steering committee which
includes county officials and staff toured the city and county in an effort to educate the
consultant on some key concerns and corridors in the area. The next meeting on this plan
is the stakeholders meeting which will be held September 18, 2006 at 1:00 at the
conference room of Our Health located at 329 N. Cameron St. Committee members are
welcome to attend and staff will also be present and update the committee after the meeting.
Also in progress is the citizen survey for the plan. At last update the survey had more than 400
responses and is still ongoing. A link to the survey can be found on the MPO website
www.winfredmpo.ora .
Local Assistance Projects
As part of a local assistance task on the MPO work program they have budgeted $80,000 to work
on projects as local assistance to the member localities (Frederick County, Winchester, and
Stephen's city). The MPO Policy Committee determined that an access management plan and a
study of the issues at 1-81\Route 11 \Shady Elm should be co -top priorities for that work item. The
Policy Committee appointed a management team made up of two individuals from the County,
two from the City, and one from VDOT to lead the procurement effort for this study. For the
County Supervisor Chuck DeHaven and Transportation Planner John Bishop are serving on this
committee. On September 14, 2006 that committee had its first meeting and began the process
of creating work scopes for these two projects.
This item is for information and discussion. No action is required.
ITEM #4
Article Distribution
Attached please find a number of articles of interest that staff has come across since the last meeting.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
WILLIAM J. HOWELL
SPEAKER
TWENTY-EIGHTH DISTRICT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 13, 2006
0 -01-1. LE ASSIGNMENTS:
RULES (CHAIRMAN)
Contact: G. Paul Nardo
(804)698-1228
#wnardo@house.state.va.us
Speaker Howell Announces Comprehensive
VDOT Reform Package
-- Innovations, Performance Measures to Bring State Transportation Agency into 21St Century --
Proposals Require VDOT to Pursue Private -Sector Involvement, Strengthen Partnerships with Localities --
Reforms Integral to Republican Approach to Transform, Improve and Invest in Virginia Transportation --
RICHMOND, 13 September 2006 — Virginia House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell (R -Stafford),
and Delegate Leo C. Wardrup, Jr. (R -Virginia Beach), Chairman of the House Transportation Committee,
today announced a comprehensive package of legislation to reform the delivery of transportation services in
the Commonwealth. The package is integral to achieving the positive, long-term and ongoing results necessary
for the efficient, safe and reliable movement of people and products throughout Virginia.
The legislative package — comprising at least 10 bills --- continues the ongoing transformation that House
Republicans have been championing and advancing to reform, streamline and modernize the operations of the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the state agency responsible for the delivery of transportation
services for the Commonwealth. The proposals, collectively comprising several key components of a
comprehensive plan by House Republicans to address transportation, will be considered when the General
Assembly reconvenes for the final portion of the 2006 Special Session, scheduled to resume on September 27.
"Although the calendar indicates we are well into the 21 � Century, the agency responsible for providing
Virginians with safe and efficient roadways continues to deliver its services in an outdated manner," remarked
Speaker Howell. "Today, we are proposing a series of bills to modernize VDOT and better enable it to
provide Virginians with the network of roads, bridges and transit required to meet this century's challenges and
seize its many opportunities. These reforms will improve the quality of this core government service by
instituting an innovative and effective performance-based planning, management and contracting system.
"While `on time and on budget' has become an oft -quoted mantra for VDOT, the agency has yet to
establish or adopt performance measures to reduce traffic congestion for the benefit of Virginia's commuters,
families, businesses, environment and economy. Our proposals will require that such measures be enacted, so
VDOT can finally begin to quantify its effectiveness — not just by how well it meets required deadlines, but
by whether or not specific infrastructure projects actually improve the daily commutes and travels of Virginians.
-- more --
Speaker's Room • State Capitol « Post Office Box 406 . Richmond, Virginia 23218
ReakerHowell Announces Comprehensive VDOT Reform Package
Page 2
"We will never effectively and affordably address this challenge without incorporating the lessons of
the private sector, harnessing the power and creativity of the free enterprise system, and enlisting them in this
process. Our plan, therefore, includes requiring that the VDOT Commissioner provide a detailed plan to
increase the role of the private sector in meeting our Commonwealth's transportation needs. Despite
Virginia's pioneering Public -Private Transportation Act of 1995 having been in effect for more than a decade,
the Commonwealth lags behind other states in utilizing these cost- and time -saving opportunities. For a more
vibrant economy and better quality of life for all Virginians, I want to change that and improve mobility.
I want to open wide the door to imaginative private -sector solutions that will help meet pressing public needs in
transportation without adding to the burdens of taxpaying families.
"These are not the only proposed reforms we are announcing today. From streamlining and reforming
the bureaucratic process within VDOT, to requiring legislative approval prior to the transfer of any
Commonwealth transportation asset, to finally enacting some significant and long -overdue recommendations
proposed by 3LARC as far back as 2001, the multi -faceted approach we are detailing today will accelerate the
process of improving Virginia's network of roads, railways, and transit. Moreover, they will give Virginia's
commuters relief sooner than adhering to the failed, status -quo approach of attempting to tax and pave our
way out of congestion," said Speaker Howell.
Signaling that additional legislative initiatives would be announced prior to September 27,
Speaker Howell and Chairman Wardrup made clear that House Republicans would offer a comprehensive
package of proposals for the Special Session.
"I've been working to make VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board responsive and
accountable ever since I've been in the House," declared Chairman Wardrup. "Some of these ideas are new,
and some are long overdue. The upcoming session gives us the best opportunity since I've been here to
accomplish genuine reform and much-needed transformation in Virginia's transportation system. If we can
get others to look beyond the one -way -street of tax increases, we might just be able to make getting around
Virginia a lot easier."
"The VDOT reform proposals we're highlighting today are not the only policy initiatives that will be
considered during this session," noted Speaker Howell. "Innovation has become a hallmark of the House
Republican Caucus, and today's package represents one important aspect of the overall solution. I am
confident that the House will act to improve transportation this session, and it is my hope that the Governor
and the Senate will join us in this promising effort,"
An overview of the VDOT reforms highlighted today follow as a separate attachment.
Today's announcement marked the third time in Iess than two years that House Republicans have
advanced proposals to address Virginia's transportation challenge. During the 2005 General Assembly Session,
House Republicans initiated and passed the most comprehensive transportation plan introduced that year —
generating more than $1.0 billion in additional transportation investments statewide. The final package
agreed to by the Senate and Governor totaled over $850 million — the largest single increase in transportation
spending since 1986. During the 2006 Regular Session, House Republicans introduced and approved a
comprehensive, three -pronged transportation improvement package, including $1.2 billion in additional funding
in the 2006-2008 biennium on top of the $4.5 billion Virginia already spends on transportation each year.
Although many of the House's proposals were ultimately approved, Governor Kaine and the Senate would
only agree to $568 million for transportation — not anywhere near the transportation funding level wanted by
House Republicans, and an amount lower that that originally proposed by Governor Warner.
TRANSFORMING THE DELIVERY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN VIRGINIA
Integrate performance measures, specifically on congestion, into the Statewide Transportation Plan
• This reform will require Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) to focus transportation investments on projects designed to relieve
traffic congestion. By directing funds to improvements that optimize the capacity of existing
roadways and transportation infrastructure, VDOT will more efficiently use available resources.
• By evaluating improvements based on performance criteria, such as delay reductions or travel time
improvements (achieved through better traffic signal synchronization, faster accident management,
more telework opportunities, or other means), VDOT can move beyond "on-time" and "on -budget," and
focus on delivering transportation improvements that achieve direct benefits for commuters and travelers.
➢ Develop a detailed Action Plan to increase the role of the private sector in the development of
transportation projects in Virginia as well as the use of public private partnerships
• This reform will require VDOT to become more pro -active in identifying opportunities for private
sector involvement in transportation improvements. This is important to expand the potential
investment from the substantial market of private equity available to enhance transportation assets.
• Currently, VDOT has taken too passive of a role in expanding private -sector involvement in
public infrastructure, simply waiting for proposals to be submitted to them instead of soliciting
private sector expertise to solve identified and prioritized transportation problems.
➢ Direct the CTB to increase private investment in transportation infrastructure and maximize
private capital through the PPTA or other innovative financing measures for large projects
+ This reform will maximize private investment in significant projects by requiring VDOT to consider
public-private partnerships as an option for all projects valued in excess of $100 million.
➢ Shift hiring authority for the VDOT Commissioner to the CTB, and include General Assembly
appointed members to the Board
• This reform will provide greater stability and accountability by increasing Commonwealth
Transportation Board responsibility for VDOT's successes and failures as well as provide for
oversight of the transportation decision making process.
• This change also seizes the opportunity for increased continuity and performance from a professional
Commissioner (much like Virginia Information Technologies Agencies, or VITA). Oftentimes, it is
challenging to attract quality professionals to the VDOT Commissioner position if it is limited to a
four-year tenure and subject to changes in gubernatorial administrations.
i Streamline state environmental review process for transportation construction projects
• This reform is designed to eliminate onerous and duplicative regulatory hurdles while ensuring
appropriate enviromnental stewardship of Virginia resources.
• Currently, the process is cumbersome and unnecessarily difficult. By consolidating requirements
under one lead agency, the Commonwealth can ensure greater responsiveness, more efficient project
delivery and increased performance.
House Republicans' 21,1 Century Transportation Agenda - VDOT Reforms September 13, 2006
➢ Direct VDOT to re -align its administration road classification system so that the classification
matches thefunctional purpose of Virginia's roadways
• This reform will ensure that roadways of statewide or regional significance are part of the state
primary roadway system and that decision making for local roads is made by local governments.
VDOT's existing classification system is based on decisions made in the 1930s and often does not
reflect today's driving patterns. VDOT already routinely provides functional classification data to
the federal government but currently does not use those rational classifications as a basis for action.
• This also is an important step toward ensuring transportation decisions are made by those most impacted
by them, and a precursor to any substantial devolution of transportation control to local governments
Require that VDOT optimize all state-owned or operated toll roads for electronic throughput and
submit plans to increase vehicle throughput on existing toll roads
• This reform will require VDOT to expedite its efforts to install technologically advanced tolling
mechanisms — thereby enhancing mobility and improving traffic flow on existing roadways.
• The majority of congestion on existing toll roads is caused not so much by excessive traffic, but by the
unnecessary delays at toll booths. Use of devices like "Smart Tags" on dedicated and gate -less toll lanes
provides substantial opportunities to alleviate congestion on toll roads by maximizing existing capacity.
➢ Prohibit conveyance or transfer of any Virginia Department of Transportation toll facility or its
operations without General Assembly approval
• This reform will ensure that complete and proper consideration is given to all available options
before VDOT relinquishes any of Virginia's many valuable transportation assets. This is important in
assuring that the Commonwealth is receiving the highest value and greatest return for its assets.
• There are great opportunities to increase investment in our transportation infrastructure through
the expanded use of public-private partnerships and concession opportunities. Additional legislative
oversight is needed to ensure Virginia receives the best deal before entering into a long-term agreement.
➢ Institute competitive outsourcing in VDOT with decision making at the District Administrator level
+ This reform will require VDOT to competitively bid all functions thereby ensuring that activities
that could be undertaken more efficiently by the private sector are shifted to the private sector,
while allowing VDOT employees to continue to perform functions it can undertake more
efficiently and effectively.
+ By ensuring — on a regional basis — that work is most efficiently distributed among the government
and private sectors, VDOT can better focus and direct its efforts to those things it can do best and
make the most use of existing transportation funds.
➢ Create a legislative Transportation Accountability Commission
This reform will establish an oversight commission to ensure accountability on the transportation
decisions impacting the commuters and businesses of Virginia. This is important in securing a
responsive and accountable transportation service delivery organization.
Nouse Repubficans' 21St Century Transportation Agenda - VDOT Reforms September 13, 2006
'An Uphill Struggle' for N.Va. Roads Plan - washingtonpost.com Page 1 of 3
washingtonpost co
'An Uphill Struggle' for N. Va.
Roads Plan
By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 15, 2006; B04
A $417 million plan by Northern Virginia Republicans
designed to ease area traffic problems faces the same
obstacle during an upcoming special session of the
General Assembly that has thwarted similar efforts all
year: opposition from House leaders to new taxes or
fees.
lT OWORRIES?
WIT NAME
VAN METRE HOME!
CJXKLIUAL- I OR Df. LUI _-� ANI I 0I !? 1�1 ki_I LS
"It's an uphill struggle," said Del. Thomas Davis Rust
(Fairfax), who helped draft the plan. "Obviously, we have a lot of obstacles. We have a lot of folks who
don't understand how severe the problem is in Northern Virginia."
Rust and other backers of the regional proposal, which would raise and spend money only in Northern
Virginia, have gained the support of some business leaders, local government officials and their
counterparts in Hampton Roads, who are crafting a similar measure for that traffic -plagued region.
But House Speaker William J. Howell (R -Stafford) signaled the difficulty the plan faces this week when
he said Virginia can address its transportation needs with existing resources.
Such declarations confound most lawmakers in Northern Virginia -- especially Republicans, who hear
daily from frustrated constituents seeking congestion relief and who are watching with growing alarm as
Democrats prevail in election after election dominated by traffic and growth concerns. Democratic Gov.
Timothy M. Kaine swept Northern Virginia last year promising solutions on both counts.
"Ninety percent of the calls I get to my office deal with some kind of traffic problem," said Del. David
B. Albo (Fairfax), a primary author of the regional proposal. "At least let me solve my own problem. If
you're not going to help me out, at least help me solve my own problem."
Lawmakers have spent nearly the entire year trying to agree on a plan that would start to fix traffic
problems that have become among the worst in the nation. They are again heading to Richmond at the
end of the month for a three-day special session dedicated to coming up with transportation solutions,
and they are going there with divisions that have persisted all year.
Albo and others say their let -us -help -ourselves plan makes sense because Northern Virginians are
desperate for relief from gridlock and are willing to pay for it themselves, even though businesses and
residents pay the largest portion of state taxes.
Howell said he recognizes the urgency of the issue, particularly in Northern Virginia, but he believes tax
increases in a year of nine -digit surpluses would be irresponsible.
"It's easy to go out and say, 'Let's raise a million dollars,'" Howell said. "There's an overwhelming
majority of my caucus that says: 'This isn't a good idea. If we can't find reliable, continuing money, then
http://www.washingtonpost.conilwp-dynlcontentlarticlel2006lO9ll4lAR2006091401558 D... 9/15/2006
'An Uphill Struggle' for N.Va. Roads Plan - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 3
we shouldn't be doing this.'"
Those who support the Northern Virginia proposal say that's exactly their aim, too. The plan would
assess a variety of charges, including fees as high as $7,000 on new homes as well as higher fees to
register new vehicles. Backers say the costs would be paid primarily by the newcomers most responsible
for growing congestion on state roads.
Because most of the burden would be borne by businesses, the average Northern Virginia resident
would pay only $30 more per year, Albo said. "What an incredible bargain this is for people," Albo said.
Albo's plan would send $50 million per year to Metrorail and $30 million to Virginia Railway Express.
A large chunk would be divided among the jurisdictions according to where the money was raised, and
the remainder would be controlled by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, a regional entity
that would be required to spend a portion of the revenue on smaller road projects in addition to larger
ones.
"I didn't want the authority blowing all the money on three big projects," Albo said. "My real concern is
to make sure my constituents can get out of their house."
The type of small project that the money could go toward is the widening of Rolling Road, which has
been scheduled to be expanded from two to four lanes for more than a decade, Albo said.
The type of big project that would benefit is the Fairfax County Parkway, which is planned to be
extended to Fort Belvoir.
Not everyone in Northern Virginia supports the proposal. The Fairfax County Republican Committee
issued a proclamation this week opposing proposals that require new taxes or fees. The Home Builders
Association of Virginia opposes it because of the proposed fee on new homes.
Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick (R -Prince William) said he plans to vote against it. "Raising taxes on
hardworking Northern Virginia families is not the answer to our transportation problem," he said.
Backers of the regional plan note that business leaders in Northern Virginia, many of them in real estate,
are calling for some solution to traffic. "We have not endorsed a specific proposal, but we are urging the
legislature to go ahead and adopt a transportation funding solution," said Jim Williams, executive vice
president of the Northern Virginia Building Industry Association.
Backers also say their plan represents the best hope for a meaningful fix to the state's ailing
transportation network in a year when raising taxes and fees across the state is unlikely. Kaine's earlier
proposal to raise taxes by $1 billion statewide to pay for new road and transit projects froze the
legislature for six months and helped bring the state to the brink of a budget crisis.
The last thing legislators want is to come home empty-handed -- particularly in an election year in which
traffic and growth once again are bound to be major themes.
"We're in a jam," said state Del. Joe T. May (R -Loudoun), who supports the regional plan. "We can't
really afford to wait longer to address it."
O 2006 The Washington Post Company
Ads by Google
http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/articlel2006/09ll4lAR2006091401558 p... 9/15/2006
'An Uphill Struggle' for N.Va. Roads Plan - washingtonpost.com Page 3 of 3
Find Your Home Richt Now
Search the entire Multiple Listing Service on your computer.
www.metroi 00realty.com
Virghnia Hair Removal
Laser Hair Removal Resource Contact a clinic near you.
wv✓w. ha irlasers. com
New Ryland Homes -Virginia
Ryland Homes®, New Home Builder Award -Winning Homes Now Available!
RVIand.com/N.Virgima
http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dyn/content/articlel2006/09ll4lAR2006091401558 p... 9/15/2006
ITEM #5
ether Business
A. At the September 13, 2006 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board expressed a desire to
have the Transportation Committee review the rating system for the hard surfacing of rural
roadways in the County. Staff is compiling information to present on this topic for review at
the next meeting.