Upload
nguyendien
View
217
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PlanWorks Case Study Route 29 Corridor Assessment, Campbell County
Virginia Department of Transportation
PlanWorksisawebresourcethatsupportscollaborativedecision‐making intransportationplanningandprojectdevelopment.PlanWorksisbuiltaroundkeydecisionpointsinlong‐rangeplanning,programming,corridorplanning,andenvironmentalreview.PlanWorkssuggestswhenandhowtoengagecross‐disciplinarypartnersandstakeholdergroups.
Transportationdecision‐makingphase(s):CorridorPlanning
ExecutiveSummary
Route29(WardsRoad)inCampbellCounty,Virginiaisa6.6milecorridorservingtwosetsofusers:throughtravelerswhovaluethecorridor’scontributiontostatewidemobilityandthebusinesscommunitywhichvalueslocalaccess.Thecorridorhasbeenwellexamined,withfiveseparatestudiesconductedduringthepasttwodecades,however,alackoffundsformajorcapacityinvestmentshasforcedthecommunitytolooktowardlower‐costsolutions,suchasestablishmentofatransportationcorridoroverlaydistrictandconsolidationofaccesspoints—butsuchsolutionshavenotbeenidentified,inadetailedmanner,onasystematicbasis.Thesingle‐mostgreatestchallenge,therefore,hasbeenthelackofanauthorizingenvironmentinwhichtomakeprogresstowardimprovingthiscorridorwhichfunctionsasbothaVDOTrouteofstatewidesignificanceandalocalmainstreet.Akeyoutcomeincludesthedevelopmentofa$19.43millionsetofimprovementsthatcollectivelyimprovelocalvehicularaccess(e.g.,theadditionofturnlanes),localnonmotorizedaccess(e.g.,constructionofasharedusepath),andthroughmobility(e.g.,theclosureofmedians).Thisoutcomeissupportedbyapublicinvolvementprocess(supportedbythelocalBoardofSupervisors[BOS])thatdemonstratedinterestinspecificcorridor‐preservationtechniquesandthepreparationoftheseprojectsforcandidatefundingsourcesavailableinVirginia:SmartScale,theHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram,andtheMPO’sConstrainedLongRangePlan.
ProjectSnapshot
A6.6milecorridorwithADTequaltoabout20,376(2015)and365crashesovera5yearperiod(2011‐2015).
ThecorridorisonVirginia’sCorridorsofStatewideSignificance(COSS),emphasizingitsmobilityfunction
Yet,usersmustincreaseexpectedcommutingtimebyabout45%iftheycannotaffordtobelatemorethantwicepermonth.
Thecorridoristhesiteofthecounty’s2006TransportationCorridorOverlayDistrict.
Thecorridorhasbeenstudiedseveraltimesoutsidethetraditionalplanningprocess:1997,2003,2005,2009,and2011.
Fundsforlargescalecapacityimprovementsarenotavailable:a2016planning‐levelcostestimateforabypassis$100million.
AnewprogrammingenvironmentinVirginia(SmartScale)emphasizescost‐effectiveprojects,wherebenefitsmustbequantifiedasmuchaspossible.
CountyBOSstronglyemphasizedtheneedforanopenprocessallowingalltoparticipate.
2
Agency’sChallenge
ThechallengeVDOTfacedwhenseekingthisPlanWorksgrantwashowtoidentifyspecificprojectsthatboth(1)generatedlocalsupportand(2)couldbebuiltwithavailablefinancialresources.ThischallengewasexacerbatedbythefactthatWardsRoad(Route29)inCampbellCountysupportstwodistinctpurposes:localeconomicdevelopment(asthisareaincludesLynchburgRegionalAirport,anexpandingLibertyUniversity,andsignificantgrowthincommercialestablishments)andstatewidemobility(asUS‐29isamajornorth‐southconnectionprovidingpassengerandfreightserviceforVirginiaandadesignatedcorridorofstatewidesignificance).Theneedtoimproveinstitutionaldecision‐makingwhenacorridorservesbothmobilityandaccesshasbeendocumentedinVirginia(OhlmsandRoy,2016).
Forthiscorridor,theroleoflocalsupportandthelimitsoffinancialresourcesareclear,basedon20yearsofstudies:aphase1statewidestudy(1997),aphase2and3statewidestudy(2003),thedevelopmentofacorridoroverlaydistrictinCampbellCounty(2005),astatewideblueprint(2009),aroadwaysafetyaudit(2010/2011),andinclusionwithincomprehensiveplans.Theaforementioned2003studyclearlyarticulatestheneedtobothreducethenumberoffutureaccesspointsandtosecurefundingforimprovementsinaneraofscarcefiscalresources,concludingthat,giventhatthecompetitivenatureoftransportationfundinginVirginia,evenwithinnovativefinancingtechniquessuchasaretailsalestaxdedicatedtotransportation,thereexistsa“needtochangethepriorityofthisprojectinthecontextofoverallCommonwealthtransportationprojects.”(VDOT,2003).(Forexample,thatreportsuggestedthataretailsalestaxforthe100+milecorridor[e.g.,notjustCampbellCountyandtheadjacentCityofLynchburg,butfromthecityofCharlottesvilletothenorthtoDanvilleinthesouth]—couldgenerateapproximately$327million[inyear2000dollars]overa20yearperiod[about$361millionin2016dollarsintermsofpurchasingpowerforhighwayconstructionbasedonconstructioncostindicesavailableforthatperiod(FHWA,2015,2016)].A2016planningcostestimateisthatabypassinthiscountyalonewouldcostapproximately$100million—easilydwarfingthe$26millionprimaryallocationfortheentireten‐countyLynchburgDistrictin2004.)Thecorridorhistoryalsohighlightstheneedforthegenerationoflocalsupport:anaddendumtothe2009statewideblueprintstatedthataprofessionalfacilitatorshouldbeenlistedtobuildaconstituencyforimprovements,explainingthat“Localofficialscancollaboratewithotherstakeholdersandoneanotherinfacilitatedworkshopsand/orcharrettestocompareinterests,explorealternativesandextendcorridorvisions.”(VDOT,2011).Thus,achallengefacedatthebeginningofthisprocesswastheintegrationofsought‐afterneedsforthecorridorwithlocalandstatewideplanningprocesses.
Thepreviousplanningeffortsdonotsuggestintensedisagreementoverthebenefitofimprovingthecorridor,andthislackofdisagreementprovidesanimportantcontextforbetterunderstandinghowthesechallenges—theneedforlocalsupport,thecorridorhavingmultiplepurposes,andfundinglimits—underscorewhatnowappearstobeanoverarchingneedforgettingaprojectunstuck:solutionspecificity.Thatis,asummaryofstudiesoftheRoute29CorridordevelopedbyAECOM(2016)underscorestheneedforspecificsolutionstogetaprojectunstuck.Forexample,inanevaluationofthe2009Route29CorridorStudy,AECOMnotesthatastrengthofthestudyisthatitsrecommendationtocloseandconsolidatecrossoverscanhelpenact“accessmanagementprinciples”andimprovesafety.However,AECOM(2016)alsonotedthataweaknessofthestudywasthatsomecrossoversprovided“essentialaccess”totripgeneratorsinthecorridor,necessitatingamoredetailedevaluationofeachparticularcrossovertodetermineitsimpactoncrashriskandlocalaccess.ItisthisneedforspecificsolutionsthatPlanWorkssoughttoaddress.
3
ProductImplementation
Theprojectteam(CampbellCounty,Region2000,VDOTLynchburgDistrict,UVA’sInstituteforEnvironmentalNegotiation,AECOM,FHWAVirginiaDivision,andVTRC)appliedthePlanWorkscorridorplanningprocesstodevelopcorridorpreservationandaccessmanagementprojectsthatcanbefundedthroughavarietyofmechanisms.
CorridorPlanningDecisionGuideThedecisionguideinfluencedthemannerinwhichtaskswereundertaken.Table1showsthedecisionsthatresultedfromtheapplicationofeachPlanWorksmoduleandactionstakentoachieveeachdecision.
Forexample,considerCOR‐1,wherethePlanWorksdecisionpointistoagreeonthescopeoftheplanningprocess.Forthatparticularmodule,twooutcomeswereparticularlyrelevantasshowninthemiddlecolumnofTable1:membersofthepublicshouldbeabletodirectlyinfluencetheprocess(whichledtonotusingatechnicaladvisorycommitteebutratherhavingmultiplepublicmeetings)andtheprocessshouldfocusonshortertermprojectsthatcanbeimplemented,asfundsforlarge‐scalecapacityexpansionprojects,suchasabypass,arenotavailable.TherightcolumnofTable1showstheactionstakentoimplementCOR‐1,whichincludedaDecember2015meetingwithtwosupervisors(inwhosedistrictsthecorridorexists)andasubsequentJanuary2016meetingwheremembersofthepublicwereintroducedtothecorridorplanningprocess(seeFigure1).
Theteam’sexperiencewithapplyingthedecisionguidewasthatseveralofthemodulesareiterative.GenerallytheteamfoundthatCOR‐1andCOR‐2(scope,problemstatements,andopportunities)couldbeperformedintandem,thatCOR‐3throughCOR‐5(goalsandperformancemeasures)neededtobeperformedmultipletimessuchthattheresultsofCOR‐5[measures]modifiedCOR‐3[goals],andthatCOR‐7throughCOR‐9(blendedsolutionsetandprioritizationofprojects)neededtobeperformedintandem.Inparticular,COR‐6requiressubstantialeffortasastand‐aloneitemasitisthefirstinstancewhereattendeesbegintoseeadirectoutcomeoftheirparticipation.
Figure1.Attendeeslistentopresentations(left)andoffersolutions(middle);corridormap(right)
ImplementationSummary
DecisionGuide:Whileall9COR‐moduleswereused,keydecisionpointsincludedCOR‐2,COR‐3,COR‐5,COR‐7,andCOR‐9.
Assessments:(Forthegeneralpublic),asingleassessmentwasconductedbasedonquestionsfrompartnercollaborationandstakeholdercollaboration.
Application:IncorporatingReliabilityPerformanceMeasuresintotheTransportationPlanningandProgrammingProcesses.Library:SHRP2’sIncorporatingTravelTimeReliabilityintotheHCMandPerformanceMeasurementFrameworkforHighwayCapacityDecision‐Making.
4
Table1.SummaryofDecisionPointsfromthePlanWorksCorridorPlanningProcessCOR DecisionsResultingfromApplicationofPlanWorks Actions1 ApproveScopeofCorridorPlanningProcess
Everylandownerneedstobeinvitedtoeverymeeting.
Avoidatechnicaladvisorycommittee—rather,letparticipantsdirectlyinfluencetheprocess.
ThegeographicalscopeoftheplanningprocessistheRoute29CorridorwithinCampbellCountyfromtheCityofLynchburg(Route29/640interchange)toRoute24(theMPOboundary),andthefocusisonprojectsthatcanbeimplementedfairlysoon.
MetwithCampbellCountyBOSmembersandDirectorofEconomicDevelopment(December2016).
FirstpublicmeetingJanuary2016(42participantsand71commentsshownontheWebsite.)
Specificdeficienciesandopportunitiesareidentifiedatthepublicmeetingwhereattendeesaregivenlarge(6footby6foot)mapsofthecorridorandaskedtodrawcommentsdirectlyonthemaps.
DeficienciesarecategorizedbygoalandmadeavailabletothepublicviaaninteractiveGIS‐basedwebsite.Forexample,publiccomment37statesthata60mphspeedlimitis“murderous”ataparticularlocation.(Thewebsiteismosteasilyfoundbysearchingfor“Route29CorridorAssessment,CampbellCounty.”)
2 ApproveProblemStatementsandOpportunities Deficienciesincludecongestion,safety,andespeciallya
cumbersomedevelopmentreviewprocess. Opportunitiesincludesimplifyingthelanddevelopment
reviewprocess,improvingtransportationoperationsinthiscorridor,andeducatingthepubliconhowthecorridoroverlaydistrictapplies.
3 ApproveGoalsoftheCorridor Fourgoalsareinitiallyestablishedrelatingtosafety,
effectiveness,theenvironment,andtransportation/landusecoordination.
Additionalstakeholdersareinterviewedsuchasresidentialpropertyowners,largeemployers,aregionalairport,transitprovider,andahomeownersassociationrepresentative.
Basedontheinterviewsandpubliccomments,4goals
forthecorridorareestablished—andthenmatchedtospecificperformancemeasures,suchthatatotalof23performancemeasuresareidentified.
Dataforperformancemeasuresaredetermined.
4
ReachConsensusonScope Tentativeperformancemeasuresareproposedforeach
goal.Forexample,landusecoordinationcanberelatedtointersectiondelaybasedon2040projectedvolumes.
5 Approveevaluationcriteria,methods,andmeasures Numberofgoalsisreducedfrom4to3,andnumberof
performancemeasuresisreducedfrom23to13. Twopromisingwaysofdeterminingreliabilityare
observed:traveltimereliabilityindex[TTRI](forrecurringcongestion)andcrashrisk(fornon‐recurringcongestion)
AttendeesidentifyspecificsolutionsatsecondpublicmeetinginJune2016(53comments).
Stakeholderassessmentshowsthatmoreeffort
needstobedevotedtoexplainingtheprocessatfuturemeetings;henceflowchartisdeveloped.
Thetraveltimereliabilityindex(TTRI)inthecorridorisdetermined.
6 Approverangeofsolutionsets Fourcandidatesolutionsetsareidentified,whereeach
solutionsetidentifiesmultipleprojects.Eachsolutionsethasaparticulartheme:capacity,safety,economicdevelopment,andalternativemodessupportedbytechnology.
Numberofperformancemeasuresisreducedfrom13to
4.Year2040conditionsareused.TTRI,notcrashriskalone,ischosentomeasureimpactsonreliability.
Internaldiscussionssuggestthatadditionalconstraintsonhowlandisdevelopedwouldlikelygenerateoppositiontothisproject,thusnomodificationismadetotheTransportationCorridorOverlayDistrict.
Candidatesolutionsetsarepresentedatathird
publicmeetinginOctober2016(56comments).Attendeesbreakintosmallgroups;eachtablehasateammemberpresentwhocananswerquestions.
5
COR DecisionsResultingfromApplicationofPlanWorks Actions7 Adoptpreferredsolutionset
Blendedsolutionsetincludesroughly$19.43millionin
proposedprojects.Elementsaddresssafety(e.g.,rightinrightouts),capacity(e.g.,closingthemedian),businessaccess(e.g.,two‐wayleftturnlane)andmultiplemodes(e.g.,sharedbicycle/pedestrianpath)
Costsforeachprojectelementsintheblendedsetareestimated.
Performancemeasuresarecomputedforeachsolutionset,whereperformancemeasuresareEquivalentPropertyDamageOnly(EPDO)offatalandinjurycrashesexpectedtobereduced,mainlinedelay(2040conditions),TravelTimeReliabilityIndex,andmovementdelay(2040conditions).
Atthesamepublicmeeting,stakeholdersareasked
“whichelementscauseaconcern?Whichelementswouldyousupport?”
8 Approvecriteriaforprioritizationofprojects
Criteriaare:(1)costin2016dollars;(2)EPDOoffatalandinjurycrashesreduced;(3)impactonthetraveltimereliabilityindexascomputedfromSmartScale;(4)mainlinedelay;and(5)intersectiondelaybasedon2040conditions.
AllprojectswillbepursuedprovidedsupportremainsasperCOR‐9,recognizingthatsomefundingsources(e.g.,theHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram[HSIP])mayleadtoconstructionsoonerthanotherfundingsources(e.g.,thelongrangeplanningprocess).
Detailsofprojectsareidentifiedattheplanninglevelsuchascost,location,numberofsites,andwherepossible,criteriausedbyfundingsourcestoevaluateprojects.DatabaseprovidedbyAECOMcanbeusedasastartingpointtoprepareprojectsforsubmission.
Example:theprojectsfromthiscorridorwill
competewithotherprojectsthroughoutVirginiaforfundsmadeavailableunder“SmartScale.”OnesuchcriterionisaVirginia‐specificformulathatisusedtoestimatehowimprovementswillaffectthetraveltimereliabilityindex.AnothercriterionistheEPDOofcrashesreduced.Thesecriteriaarecomputedforeachproject.
DraftmemorandumpreparedfortheCountytouseasabasisforpresentingtheseprojectstotheBoardofSupervisors.
ProjectteammembersagreethattheCampbellCountyComprehensivePlanwillbeupdatedbasedontheresultsofthisstudy.
9 Adoptprioritiesforimplementationa PendingtheresultofapresentationbytheCampbell
CountyDirectorofEconomicDevelopmenttotheCountyBoardofSupervisors,theelementsoftheblendedsolutionsetwillbepursuedthroughthreedistinctfundingsources:Virginia’sSmartScale,thedevelopmentoftheMPOConstrainedLongRangePlan,andtheHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram.
aThisreportisbasedoninformationcurrentasofFebruary2017.ItispossiblethatastheprojectsgiveninTable3andshowninAppendixCmovethroughthetransportationprogrammingprocess,theywillberevised
CorridorPlanningAssessmentsTheteamsolicitedquestionsfromtwoPlanWorksAssessments(PartnerCollaborationandStakeholderCollaboration).Themostpressingareaiswhethermembersofthepubliccouldfollowtheplanningprocessforthiscorridor.Additionally,theassessmentquestionscouldhelpgarnerparticipantagreementonthegoals,criteria,andperformancemeasures—thatis,towhatextentdoesthematerialinPlanWorksCOR‐5,asimplementedbytheprojectteam,resonatewithattendees?TheteammodifiedthewordingofthesequestionstomakethemsuitableforthespecificaudienceandthecontextofCampbellCounty.Forexample,wechangedthePlanWorks“Neutral”categoryto“NeitherAgreenorDisagree.”Asanotherexample,wechanged“Ihavebeenabletoengagewithothersofsimilarinterestthroughouttheprocess”towhatisshownasthelastquestioninTable2:“Atthismeeting,Ihavebeenabletosharemyviewswithothers.”
6
Table2.ResultofthePlanWorksStakeholderAssessment(June2016)
SurveyQuestion(1=StronglyDisagree,2=Disagree,3=Neutral,4=Agree,5=StronglyAgree) Score
Thedecision‐makingprocessisclear 2.9
Theprojectgoalsareclearlystated. 3.0Theprojectgoals(topromoteasafe,efficienttransportationsystemcompatiblewithexistingandfuturelanduses)reflectmypersonalgoalsforthecorridor. 3.1
Theperformancemeasures(forexample,crashespermileonthecorridor)directlyrelatetothegoals. 3.0
Myinputhasbeenincorporatedintotheprojectperformancemeasures. 3.0
Atthismeeting,Ihavebeenabletosharemyviewswithothers. 3.3
Thelowscoreforclarityofthedecision‐makingprocesssuggestedthatatthenextpublicmeetingattendeesshouldbeprovidedwithasinglepagehandoutthatcontainstwopiecesofinformation.(Inretrospect,thisscorewasnotsurprisinggiventhatsomestakeholdersatthesecondpublicmeetingindicatedtheyhadmissedthefirstpublicmeeting.)Thefrontofthehandoutshouldsummarizetheprocessusedtogeneratecandidatesolutions—e.g.,establishmentofgoals,performancemeasures,andcandidatesolutionsbasedonlimitedfunds.Thebackofthehandoutshouldsummarizeafewexamplesofhowpublicinputwasincorporateddirectlyintothesolutions.Thathandout(Figure2)wasusedatthethirdpublicmeeting.
Figure2.PlanWorksHandoutDevelopedinResponsetotheStakeholderAssessment
7
Applications
IntegrationofotherSHRP2ProductsandFHWAInitiatives
TheSHRP2reporttitledIncorporatingTravel
TimeReliabilityintotheHCMwasactivelyusedforthiseffort.Findingsfromthatreport,asappliedtothiscorridor,are:
Thebufferindexisonepromisingwayofassessingreliability.
Forexample,foramotoristtravelingtoworktoavoidarrivinglate90percentofthetime(thatisduringallbuttheworstpeakperiodtravelinagivenmonth),theestimatedplanningtimeindexindicatedthat,whentravelingnorthboundinthemorningpeakhourorsouthboundintheeveningpeakhour,theexpectedtraveltimeshouldbeincreasedbyafactorof1.4overthefree‐flowtraveltime(e.g.,usingthespeedlimit.)
Anotherinterpretationofthe90thpercentilevalueintheplanningtimeindexisthatassumingapproximately20workingdayspermonth,the1.4multipliershouldbeusedbycommuterswhocannotaffordtobelatemorethantwiceamonth.
Further,thebufferindex(90thpercentile)showsthat,ifacommutercannotaffordtobelatetoworkmorethantwicepermonth,heorsheshouldpresumethathisorhermediandailycommutetimewillneedtoincreasebyroughly25%andadjusthisorherdeparturetimeaccordingly.Acharacteristicofthesetwoindicesisthattheycanbedominatedbyrecurringcongestion.
Theaforementionedreportisaccessibleat:http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2‐L08‐RW‐1.pdf)
Figure3.PlanningTimeIndex,TravelTimeIndex,andBufferIndexfortheCorridor.Theplanningtimeindexisthe90thpercentiletraveltimedividedbythefreeflowtraveltime.
Figure4.First‐timeattendeesatthesecondpublicmeetingtalkwiththefacilitatortounderstandtheprocessbeingusedinthecorridor,whichledtothedevelopmentoftheflowchart(Figure2)forthethirdpublicmeeting.
8
TheconceptsintheGuidetoIncorporatingReliabilityPerformanceMeasuresintotheTransportationPlanningandProgrammingProcesseswereusedtoconsiderreliabilityininthedevelopmentoftheneedfortheproject.TeammemberswerepreviouslyawareoftheseconceptssowedidnothavetousePlanWorkstolearnthemforthefirsttime,buttheyareusefulasareferencewhendetailsofhowthevariousindices,suchasplanningtimeindexandthebufferindex,areneeded.
Forexample,wefoundforthiscorridorthatthemiseryindex,asitsnameimplies,indicatesthetraveltimewhencongestionisworst.BasedonadifferentdatasetthanthatshowninFigure3(alldays,notjustweekdays,fortheperiodfromOctober1,2014throughSeptember30,2015),thisindexistheaverageoftheslowest5%ofalltraveltimesdividedbythetraveltimeatthespeedlimit.Whenappliedtotheentirecorridorandtotheeveningrushhour(4‐7pm),themiseryindexis1.57(northbound)and1.67(southbound).Alooseinterpretationis:aboutoneworkdaypermonth,whentrafficisunusuallybad,oneshouldassumethatcommutingtimewillbe57%(northbound)or67%(southbound)longerthanitwouldifonecouldtravelatthespeedlimit.Ultimately,however,wefocusedonthetraveltimereliabilityindex(seeFigure3)givenitsrelationshiptofundingsources.LibraryThePlanWorksLibraryshowshowothershavedemonstratedtrade‐offsassociatedwithaccessmanagementstandards.Forexample,thelibraryshowsonecase(NJRoute31IntegratedLandUseandTransportationPlan)whichappearstoevaluatethetradeoffbetweenaccessandmobility.Ultimately,theteamfoundthatonewaytomakethistradeoffwastoprovidetwosetsofperformancemeasures:oneforthroughdelayinthecorridor(suchasthroughtraveltime)andoneforaccessdelay(suchasturningleftintobusinesses.)Bothperformancemeasuresassessdelay,buttheformerisformobilityandthelatterisforlocalaccess.Oneinnovationthattheteamusedwastoincludetheinvolvementofprofessionalfacilitators(inthiscase,theUniversityofVirginiaInstituteforEnvironmentalNegotiation).Theprofessionalfacilitators’costwasapproximately$40,000forthedurationofthe14montheffort.Majorcontributionsincludedstakeholderinterviews(e.g.,truckingfirmsinCOR‐3/4),engagementwiththepublicatthreepublicmeetings(bothtosolicitcommentsandhelppresentinformationinaone‐on‐oneenvironmentwithindividualswhohadquestions),andorganizationofselectcorridorplanningmeetingsinvolvingstakeholders.Forexample,thefacilitatorplayedanactiveroleinelicitingpublicopinionthroughtheapplicationofCOR‐3throughfourmajorsteps:
1. HoldapublicmeetingatwhichasurveywasdistributedtoobtainearlyfeedbackforCOR‐1andCOR‐2.
2. Identifycandidateintervieweesinboththepublicandprivatesector.
3. DevelopquestionsforinterviewsofpartnersandadvisorsbasedonCOR‐3.and
4. Conductinterviewswithstakeholders.
Forexample,onepolicyquestionfromCOR‐3is“Aretheredifferencesorconflictsamongthestakeholderinterests?”Accordingly,differentstakeholderswereaskedhowtheywould“definesuccessforthisparticularsection”ofthecorridor.AsshownintheCampbellCountyRoute29PlanningEffortFindingsReport,anexampleofthesediverseresultsisthedifferentattitudestowardabypass:somestakeholdersarehopefulforabypass,althoughconcernsaboutabypassadverselyaffectinglocalbusinessesarealsonoted.TheCampbellCountyRoute29PlanningEffortFindingsReportalsoshowshowdifferenttrippurposesareconsidered.Forinstance,thedifficultyofmakingturnsoccursatseverallocations:LibertyMountainDrive(purposeistoaccessamajoremployer[LibertyUniversity]),CalohanRoad(purposeistoaccessaregionallandfill),andthevicinityofEnglishTavernRoad(purposesaretoaccessresidences[mobilehomeparks]andaplaceofworship[HylandHeights
9
BaptistChurch]).Thereportalsoexemplifiedthediversepurposesofthecorridor:forcongestion,individualsexpresslynotedthattheydidnotwanttoseespeedsdeterioratefurthersuchthattheareasuffereddelayscomparabletomoreurbanizedareasoftheCommonwealth.Safetyissuesarearguablyparamount:somecommentsdirectlyrelatetoincreasedtrafficvolumes(i.e.,onefirmhasadoptedapolicythattrucksmaynotchangelanes),andsomeconcernsaredrivenalsobygeometricconsiderations(i.e.,locationofcrossoversandneededturninglanestoseparateflows).Economicdevelopmentisviewedbothasbothdesirableandasituationthatmustbemitigated,withquestionsabouttheabilityoftheregiontoaccommodategrowthintraveldemand.
StakeholderCollaboration
ThisuseofPlanWorksinVirginiahasalwaysbeendescribedasamulti‐agencyeffortinvolvingCampbellCounty,Region2000whichstaffstheCentralVirginiaMPO,theVDOTLynchburgDistrict,FHWA’sVirginiaDivision,theUniversityofVirginiaInstituteforEnvironmentalNegotiation,AECOM,andtheVirginiaTransportationResearchCouncil.Thecollaborationamongstakeholdersfundamentallydrovetheprojectinseveralkeyways.
COR‐1askshowstakeholderswillbeinvolved.ThisexactquestionaroseinaDecember2015briefingwiththeCounty’sEconomicDevelopmentDirectorandalocalsupervisorwithauthorityoverthecorridor.Theresultwasthatalllandownersadjacenttothecorridorneededtohaveeveryopportunitytoinfluencetheprocess,whichdrovethedecisiontonotconveneasmallertechnicaladvisorygroupbutrathertoallowallinterestedindividualstoparticipateinthedevelopmentofsolutions.
COR‐2asksforagreementondeficienciesandopportunities,andalthoughthecorridorisastateDOTfacility,itwasthecounty’sdesirethat“althoughnoteveryonewillgeteverythingtheywant,wewantallvoicestobeheard”whichcontributedtoanactivepublicinvolvementprocessofgettingstakeholderagreementondeficienciesinthecorridor.
COR‐3andCOR‐4askforgoals,stakeholdercomments,objectives,andperformancemeasures.CollaborationwithprofessionalfacilitatorsledtothedevelopmentofaCampbellCountyRoute29PlanningEffortFindingsReportwherethosefacilitatorsinterviewedadditionalstakeholdersina
one‐oneoneformat(beyondthosewhocametothepublicmeeting)suchaspropertyowners,largeemployers,aregionalairport,transitprovider,andahomeownersassociationrepresentative.ThiswasfollowedbytheaforementionedAECOMmemorandumwhichcapturedtheresults—andnecessarymodifications—basedonpreviousstudies(andhencepreviousstakeholders).
COR‐6asksforthedevelopmentofsolutionsets,whichwasinspiredbymembersofthepublicwhoidentifiedvarioussolutionsatthesecondpublicmeeting.(Figure5showsanexampleofthe54commentsreceivedatthatmeeting).
Figure5.ExampleofSolutionsIdentifiedattheSecondPublicMeeting
COR‐8andCOR‐9requiretheprioritizationofprojects.ThisprioritizationinvolvedcollaborationbetweentheMPO,theCounty,andVDOT—andwasbuiltonhowprojectswerepreparedforrequirementsofcandidatefundingsourcesbyAECOM.(Anexampleisthecomputationsforhowthetraveltimereliabilityindexiscomputedformedianclosures.)
COR‐6andCOR‐9entailcompromise.Forexample,duringCOR‐6,thesecondpublicmeetinggeneratedcomplaintsofspeeding,and
10
COR‐7initiallyreducedspeedlimitsdramatically—insomeplacesto35mph.CommentsreceivedatthethirdpublicmeetingduringCOR‐7opposedanysuchreductions,leadingtothecompromiseinTable3.
KeyOutcomes
KeyoutcomesareobservedforboththisparticularprojectandfortheuseofPlanWorksgenerally.
Forthisparticularproject,roughly$19.43millioninimprovementshavebeenidentifiedatspecificlocationsinthecorridorasshowninTable3.
Table3.SummaryofBlendedSolutionSet
SolutionImprovement(NumberofSites)Cost in$millions
Closure/modificationofmedians(12) $0.27Lengthenleftturnlanestorage&taper(13) $1.30Installleftturnlane(8) $1.80Lengthenrightturnlanestorage&taper(5) $0.50Installrightturnlane(6) $1.35Varioussignalimprovements(1) $0.001Accessmodification(4) $1.50Installr‐cutmedianaccesspoints(3) $3.75Sidewalks(1) $2.75Sharedusepath(1) $6.20Speedlimitreduction(2)to55/45mph Minor
TherecommendationsforthisparticularprojectwillbepresentedtotheCampbellCountyBoardofSupervisorsbytheCampbellCountyDirectorofCommunityDevelopment.
BecausetwoBOSmemberswhosedistrictsincludethecorridorhavebeeninvolvedintheprocessandbecausethreepublicmeetingshavehelpedkeepcitizensinformed,therewillbestronginterestinthecommunity’sreactionasdocumentedbythepublicinvolvementprocessassociatedwithPlanWorks.Then,followingthemeetingwiththecounty,recommendationsforprojectsshowninthetop10rowsinTable3wouldbemovedintoapplicationsforvariousfundingsources,notablytheHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram(HSIP)andVirginia’sSmartScale.
ForthelastprojectinTable3(reducingspeedlimitsto55mphsouthofCalohanRoadand45mphnorthofCalohanRoad),iftheBOSmembersaresupportive,thenthenextstepwouldbeforVDOTTrafficEngineeringstafftoconductaspeedlimitstudyatthoselocations.
Anobservationthatisneitherpositivenornegativebutsimplyuniquetothecorridorplanningprocessisthatthetypesofprojectsthatarefeasiblefromafundingperspectivemustbeconsideredearlyintheprocess.Thatis,whenimplementingPlanWorks,onemusthaveanideaofthemethodsforprioritization(COR‐9)atthetimethatcandidatesolutionsetsaredeveloped(COR‐6).
PlanWorkscanpotentiallyserveasaresourceforperformingcorridorplanning,especiallycorridorpreservation.Thepassageof“SmartScale”inVirginiahasfundamentallyalteredthetransportationprogrammingprocesssuchthatprojectshavetoscorewellincertainperformancemeasuresinordertobefunded.Akeyimplicationisthatcorridorplansmustleadtoshort‐term,implementablesolutionsiftheyaretobeused,atleastinVirginia’scurrentfiscalenvironment.ThefactthatPlanWorkswashelpfulforensuringwekeptthecorridorplanningprocesstangiblehasbeensharedwithseveralentities(includingoneMPOthatwantedadditionalinformationonhowPlanWorksusedprofessionalfacilitators).
LessonsLearned
PlanWorksemphasizes“goingslowtogofast.”Asubstantialamountoftimeintheearlymodulesisspentgeneratingup‐frontagreement,whichbuildssupportfordevelopingsolutionsinthelaterCORmodules.
PlanWorksemphasizesperformance‐basedplanning.Thedecisionpointsteerstransportationpractitionerstomatchsolutions(inCOR‐7)totheperformancemeasures(COR‐5),whicharebasedongoals(COR‐1.)Thisencouragescreativity;forexample,it
11
encouragesonetoask“howmightwemeasureaproject’simpactoneconomicdevelopment?”
PlanWorksshouldbeappliedinaniterativefashion.Forexample,inorderforatransportationagencytodevelopfeasibleprojectsbasedonacorridorplanningprocess,thecriteriaforschedulingandprioritizinginvestments(COR‐9)mustbeexplicitlyconsideredintheselectionofthepreferredsolutionset(inCOR‐7).
Itmaybemoreproductivetoconductstakeholderassessmentsinthemiddleofcorridorplanningratherthanatthebeginning.Somestakeholdersmaynotevenattendtheinitialmeeting.Aseachcorridorprocessisunique,thevalueoftheassessmentistoask“whatneedsimprovement”—whichcanbeaskedonceparticipantsbetterunderstandhowtheplanningprocessmightunfold.
OftenPlanWorkspolicyquestionsmustbeshortenedforanin‐personmeetingwithstakeholders.Thequestionsareusefulasaninitialbrainstormingexercise,butwhenposingthequestionstostakeholdersormembersofthepublic,multi‐partquestionswillneedtobeabbreviated—partlybecausesomestakeholdersmaynotknowtransportationplanningdetails,andpartlytoenableaconversation.Forexample,onecanreplace“Areperformancemeasures,evaluationcriteriaandmethodologyforassessingbicycleandpedestriannetworkconnectivity,accessibility(tojobs,schools,essentialservices,recreation,etc.),equity,andsafetyincorporatedintotheprojectprioritizationprocess?”with“Whatfactorsinfluenceprioritization.”Then,additionalprobingquestionscanbeaskedofrespondents,asotherdescriptorsbesides“networkconnectivity”maybepreferable.
NextSteps
ForPlanWorksgenerally,theteamhasalreadymadefourpresentationsregardinghowPlanWorkscansupportcorridorplanning,especiallybetteraccessmanagement:
o ApresentationatVDOT’sTransportationandLandUseForumdescribingPlanWorksasacorridor
planningtoolforsupportingregionalandruralstrategies(June2,2017)
o ApresentationattheVirginiaAnnualPlanningandProgrammingMeetingregardinghowPlanWorkscansupporttheprogrammingprocessbasedoncorridorplanning(February1,2017).
o ApresentationtotheVDOTCorridorPreservationGroupandVDOTstafffromtheSalemandLynchburgVDOTconstructiondistrictsregardinghowPlanWorkscanencouragebetteraccessmanagement(February3,2017).
o AwebinarpresentedtoCaltransregardingthedetailsofhowPlanWorkscanbeimplementedusingthenineCORmodules(February15,2017).
ForPlanWorksgenerally,theteamwillcontinuetosharewithinterestedpartiesdetailsofhowtousePlanWorkscorridorplanning.
o Forexample,stafffromanotherVirginiaMPOmetwithafewteammembersinDecember2016todiscussrecommendationsforfuturePlanWorksapplications(AppendixAofthisreport)andhowPlanWorkswasappliedforthisparticularcorridor(seeAppendixB).
o SeveralmembersoftheteamhaveproducedvideotestimonialsofthestrengthsandweaknessesofusingPlanWorksasrequestedbyFHWA.
ForthisprojectandotherVDOTprojectsinparticular
o VDOTiscontinuingtouseprofessionalfacilitatorsonotherprojects,basedontheexperienceofthisuseofPlanWorksandarelated(separate)researcheffortregardingcollaborationandconsensusbuilding(OhlmsandRoy,2016).
o ForRoute29,adatabasehasbeendevelopedthatshowshowtheblendedsolutionsetinTable3scoresagainstsomeoftheSmartScaleprogrammingcriteria.Thisdatabase,alongwiththe
12
recordofpublicinputgiveninthisreportwill(iftheCountyBOSconcurs)serveasastartingpointtoimplement
theprojectsshowninTable3.ThespecificprojectsareshowninAppendixCofthisreport.
For More Information
Contacts Resources AmyO’Leary,VDOTAssociateDirectorVirginiaTransportationResearchCouncil434‐293‐1995,[email protected],VDOTTransportationPlanningDirectorVDOTLynchburgDistrict434‐856‐8331,[email protected],FHWAPlanning/EnvironmentalSpecialist202‐366‐9206,[email protected]
Route29CorridorAssessment,CampbellCounty.http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/lynchburg/route_29__corridor.asp
UsingPlanWorkstoSupportTransportationProgramming:theCampbellCountyExperience,http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/SYIP/2016/fall/Plan_Works.pdf
UsingPlanWorkstoSupportCorridorPlanning(TheFebruary15,2017webinarwillbepostedathttp://smartmobilityca.org/webinars/)
ReferencesCitedintheReport
AECOM.Memorandum(forTasks1,2,and3).July8,2016.
FHWA.NationalHighwayConstructionCostIndex(NHCCI),Washington,D.C.,2016.https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/nhcci/pt1.cfm.
FHWA.PriceTrendsforFederal‐AidHighwayConstruction‐FourthQuarter2003,Washington,D.C.,2015.https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/pt2003q4.cfm.
Ohlms,P.B.andRoy,K.M.WhenMainStreetIsaHighway:AddressingConflictsBetweenLandUseandTransportation,VTRC,2016.http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/17‐r13.pdf
UniversityofVirginiaInstituteforEnvironmentalNegotiation.CampbellCountyRoute29PlanningEffortFindingsReport,2016.http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Lynchburg/Rt_29_Campbell_Co_Corridor_Assessment/Findings_Summary.pdf
VirginiaDepartmentofTransportation.PhasesIIandIII,Route29CorridorStudy,TechnicalReport,Richmond,2003.http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/lynchburg/phases_ii_and_iii,_route_29_corridor_study.asp.
VirginiaDepartmentofTransportation.AddendumtotheRoute29CorridorStudy,Richmond,2011.http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/Route_29/Addendum‐Route_29_Corridor_Study1.pdf
TeamMembers
AECOM(BillCashman,ChrisLawrence,ShelleyBogue),CampbellCounty(PaulHarvey),FHWAVirginiaDivision(ChengYan),Region2000LocalGovernmentCouncil/CentralVirginiaMPO(BobWhite),UniversityofVirginiaInstituteforEnvironmentalNegotiation(JudieTalbot,TanyaDenckla‐Cobb,LeahBrumfeld),VDOTLynchburgDistrict(RickYoungblood,DavidCook),VirginiaTransportationResearchCouncil(AmyO'LearyandJohnMiller)
13
AppendixA.SummaryofRecommendationsforFutureUsesofPlanWorks
AppendixAshowsrecommendationsforpersonswhowillusethecorridorplanningelementofPlanWorksinthefuture,basedontheexperienceofusingPlanWorksinCampbellCounty.ForconsistencywithPlanWorks,the15recommendationsareorganizedbyeachofthenineCORsteps,withtherecommendationsforusingthestakeholderassessmentpresentedlast.Thatsaid,thesomewhatnon‐linearnatureoftheplanningprocessmeansthatsomerecommendationsmayapplytootherstepsasfollows:COR‐1andCOR‐2maybeappliedsimultaneously(thus,recommendationsfromeachCOR‐1mayberelevanttoCOR‐2andvice‐versa);COR‐3,COR‐4,andCOR‐5maybeappliediteratively;andCOR‐7,COR‐8,andCOR‐9mayalsobeappliediteratively.COR‐1:ScopeoftheCorridorPlanningProcess
1. WhenusingPlanWorks,focusfirstontheoutcomeintheOverviewsectionofCOR‐1.
ThedetailinPlanWorksisquitehelpfulbutcaninitiallybedaunting;forexample,the44policyquestionsinCOR‐1helponeconsiderthebreadthoftheplanningprocessbutcanalsoleaveoneconfusedregardingwhichquestionsshouldbeposedfirst.Itwashelpfultoexamineeachdesiredoutcomeandthenworkbackwardsfromtheoutcometospecificquestions.Forinstance,theoutcomeofCOR‐1(aclearlydefinedscopetoguidethecorridorplanningprocess)helpedtheteamrealizetheimportanceofencouragingcompromiseinthecorridor,betweenlocalaccessandthroughmovements.Then,withthatoutcomeinmind,theteamcouldstudythesamplequestionsingreaterdetail.
2. Orderthepolicyquestionssuchthateasierquestionsprecedeharderones.
Ininteractionswiththegeneralpublic,itwaseasiertogetinputwhenstartingwithquestionsthatattendeescouldimmediatelyaddress,regardlessoftheirknowledgeofthecorridor.(Forexample,whilesomeindividualswerereadytoprovidedesignsolutions,otherswhohadcomelatetothefirstpublicmeetingwerenotimmediatelycertainwhattheywerebeingaskedtodo.)Accordingly,oneshouldaskeasierquestionsinitially(e.g.,whatstakeholderslikeordonotlikeaboutthecorridor),withthehardestquestions,suchas“Howcanthecorridorbestservethelongertermneedsofthecounty/theregionforthenext20years?”beingposedlater.Forexample,thisordermightbeasfollows:
Easyquestionsdesignedtointroducerespondentstotheprocess
Inwhatwaysdoyouusethispartofthecorridor? Whataresomeofthekeyfunctionsandrolesofthecorridor–nowandinthefuture? Whatdoyoulikeaboutwhatcurrentlyexists?(Usebluestickynotestodescribethisandputitonthe
map.) Whatdon’tyoulikeaboutwhatcurrentlyexists?(Usepinkstickynotestodescribethisandputon
map.)
Harderquestionsdesignedtoelicitlongertermideas
Howcanthiscorridorbestservethelonger‐termneedsofCampbellCounty,forthenext20years? Howcanthecorridorbestservethelong‐termsneedsofthelargerregion,forthenext20years?
QuestionDesignedtoElicitSpecificSolutions
Whatspecificideaswouldyouliketobeconsideredinthedevelopmentofthiscorridor?
14
COR‐2:ApproveProblemStatementsandOpportunities
3. ThequestionsinCOR‐2areagoodstartingpointforbrainstorming.Ratherthanposingallofthestakeholderquestions,teamsmaywishtouseasmallersubset,withlongerormorecomplexquestionsbrokenintosmallerones
Forexample,considerthestakeholderquestionfromCOR‐2“Whatisimportanttoyou,toyourneighborhood,tothelocalarea,totheregion(transportation,community,environment)inthecorridor?”Theintentofthequestionisappropriatebecauseitillustrateshowdifferentrespondentsmayhavedifferentusesforacorridor.However,thequestionincludesmultiplesub‐questions—whichcangenerateconfusioninapublicmeeting.Accordingly,itwasmoreappropriatefortheteamtofirstaskjustfromthepointofviewoftheattendee,withthe“largerregion”beingaseparateconcept.
4. Providephysicalmapsforattendees’reference.
Useoftwo‐partlarge‐scaleaerialmaps(6feetby6feet)showntotherightofFigure1inthebodyofthisreportprovidedaperspectivethatwasnotimmediatelyapparentfromexaminationofthematerialontheweb:attendeescouldpointoutparcels(whichweredelineated)andgeometryinhigherdetail.Forexample,theimportanceoftheLynchburgAirport—itssizedominatesmuchofthefrontagesectionofRoute29—becomesclearerwhenonecanseetheairportonaphysicalmap(asopposedtoasmallercomputerscreen).
COR‐3:ApproveGoalsfortheCorridor5. Considerintegratingthefactorsrelatingtocontextsensitivesolutions(CSS)directlyintothescopeofthe
corridoranalysisratherthanasseparate,stand‐alonegoals.Forsomecorridors,itwillbemoreproductivenottoapplythisrecommendationbutinsteadtohavespecific,measurableobjectivesrelatedexclusivelytoCSS.ItappearsthattheMinnesota“CompleteStreets”Plan(see“HowdoesPlanWorksworkintherealworld?”)mayhavefollowedthisapproachforCSS,andareviewofthePlanWorksexampleforCOR‐3showedthatforarelatedtopic(environmentaljustice)aspecificgoalofoutreachtotheSpanish‐speakingcommunityfortheAsheboroBypassledtobothgreatercommunityparticipationandtheadditionofabridgethatleftakeycommunityintact.Insuchinstances,aseparatelineitemmeasuringprogresstowardCSSorenvironmentaljusticeisappropriate.However,forthisparticularstudy,theteamfoundithelpfultoviewCSSasemphasizingaccommodationofallmodesoftransportation—apointthathadbeennotedthroughoutmeetingswithelectedofficialsandthecommunitysincetheproject’sinception.Accordingly,ratherthanhavingaseparatelineitemforCSS,theprojectteamensuredthattheapplicationofthegoalsinthecounty’stransportationplan(e.g.,improvesafetyandaccommodatefuturelanduses)couldbeappliedtoalltransportationmodesthatused,orsoughttouse,thecorridor.
6. Wheninterviewingexternalstakeholderswhohavelimitedtimetoparticipateintheplanningprocess,
considercombiningquestionsfromCOR‐1,COR‐2,andCOR‐3andtailorthequestionstotheaudience. Conceptually,itisappropriatetoposequestionsinCOR‐1andCOR‐2regardinggoalsandscope,digest
answers,andthenmoveontoCOR‐3andexaminewhetherthecandidategoalsaresufficientlybroad.However,“intervieweefatigue”canresultifindividuals(forwhomplanningisnotthefocusoftheirjob)areconsultedtoofrequently.Therefore,itcanbehelpfultoconductdetailedinterviewswithadvisorsandobserversonceinanattempttocapturekeyinformationforCOR‐1throughCOR‐3andlet
15
thoseinsightsguidethescope.(Thisconcerndidnotapplyasmuchtotheplanningpartners,whereinsightscouldbeobtainedinamorefrequentmannergiventheirfullinvolvementintheproject.)
Interviewquestionsshouldbetailoredtointendedaudiences.Indevelopingtheinterviewquestions,theprojectteamfounditeasiertoaskthesamequestionsoftheFHWAobserverasthelocal,regional,andstatedecisionmakers—largelybecausetheseentitieswereintimatelyfamiliarwiththedetailsoftheplanningprocess.Bycontrast,itwasappropriatetosegmenttheadvisorsintotwodistinctgroups:advisorswithalargeamountoflanddevelopmentinfluence(e.g.,singlelargeemployers)andadvisorswhorepresentedacollectionofdispersedinterests(suchasahomeownersassociation).
7. Bepatient,beflexible,andbeagoodlistener.Theprofessionalfacilitatorswhowerepartofthisteamstronglyemphasizedthisrecommendation:inbringingtogetherdifferentpartnersandadvisors,anycollaborativeprocesswillevolve.Goals,playersandconditionsmayallchange.Thus,projectteammembersmustbepatientandadaptive–allowingthemselvesandeachothertobeopentonewideasandperspectives.Thus,projectelementsthatteammembersdonotindividuallyenvisionatthestartoftheeffort,suchasthreedifferentsetsofinterviewquestions,canresult.Similarly,projectelementsthatwereenvisionedwerealsomoved—forexample,thestakeholderassessment(seerecommendation15)wasmovedfromCOR‐3toCOR‐6,inordertogivestakeholdersmoreexperiencewiththeplanningprocessthattheyweresubsequentlyaskedtoevaluate.
COR‐4:ReachConsensusonScopeofEnvironmentalReviewandAnalysis
8. ConsiderpursuingCOR‐3,COR‐4,andCOR‐5simultaneouslysuchthattwoiterationsofCOR‐4(andlater,COR‐5)areperformed.TwochallengescompoundthetransitionfromhighlevelgoalsinCOR‐3tothelevelofdataneedsandanalysisinCOR‐4andthentheuseofperformancemetricsinCOR‐5.Thefirstchallengeistodifferentiatebetweenhigh‐levelgoalsthatresultfromCOR‐3(e.g.,improvecorridorsafety)andmeaningfulmetricsforassessingprogresstowardthesegoalsinCOR‐5(i.e.,crashespermile),andresultantdataneedsinCOR‐4(i.e.,rear‐endcrashesoverathreeyearperiod).ThesecondchallengeistodeterminewhichperformancemeasuresarefeasibletocomputeforcandidatesolutionsetsinCOR‐6(i.e.,crashespermileandnear‐missespermilearebothmeaningful,buttheextenttowhichonecancomputetheminadefensiblemannermayvary).Becauseaddressingthesetwochallengesatthesametimeisdifficult,agenciesusingPlanWorksmaywishtofirstdevelopaninitialresultofCOR‐5assumingallmeasuresaremeaningful.Then,agenciesmaywishtorevisetheirinitialversionbasedonaninformedapplicationofCOR‐5.
COR‐5:ApproveEvaluationCriteria,MethodsandMeasures
9. Considermeasuringreliabilitythroughsafetymetrics.Becauseprobe‐baseddatahavebecomeincreasinglycommon,itisnaturaltoquantifyreliabilitythroughmeasuresthatrequiresuchdata,suchasthebufferindex,planningtimeindex,oreventhemiseryindex.However,whenconsideringalternativescenarios,itmaynotbeeasytoforecastthosemeasures—andwhiletheycanintheoryrepresentbothrecurringandnonrecurringcongestion,theymaybeweightedmoretowardstheformer.Acomplementaryapproachistorecognizethatreliabilityisinfluencedbyunplannedincidents—crashes—andthuslookatwaystodeterminehowalternativescenarioswillinfluencecrashrisk.Forexample,thenumberofaccesspointspermile(ageometricmeasurethatcanbeestimatedforaccessmanagementalternatives)andthenumberofvehiclestops(availablethroughsomesimulationprograms)arecorrelatedwithcrashrisk.Thus,thesecanbeusedwithprojectalternativesto
16
determinehowsuchalternativesmayinfluencereliability.(Ultimately,theteamdidnotusecrashriskalonetomeasurereliabilitybutinsteadusedamoretraditionalmeasure—theTTRI—becausethatmeasurewasrequiredfortheSmartScalefundingsource).
10. Considertheuseofhandoutsifperformancemeasuresortechnicalconceptsarebeingpresented.Whiletheteamhadusedhandoutsextensivelytoshowcorridorproblemsandtogatherfeedback,arelativelylast‐minutedecisionwastoprovidehandoutsregardinghow“accessmanagement”affectstrafficflow.Inretrospect,thisappearstohavebeenhelpful,asattendeescouldrefertohandoutsasneededduringthepresentation.
11. WhenapplyingCOR‐5,presentatentativesolution.COR‐5callsfordevelopmentofperformancemeasures,whileCOR‐6callsforthedevelopmentofcandidatesolutionsets.Thismakescompletesenseintheory,however,thetimelineforpublicinvolvementmeansthatonemustbecarefulinhowthesestepsareapplied:ifonecompletelyfinishesCOR‐5first,onemayfrustrateparticipants(who,afterseeingseveralCORsteps,wishtobegintoseesolutions).IfonebeginsCOR‐6tooearly,however,onemayspendsubstantialresourcesdevelopingcandidatesolutionsthathavelittlelikelihoodofbeingimplemented.OneapproachistocompleteadraftofCOR‐5andthenatleastbeabletoofferideasofthetypesofsolutionsbeingconsidered.(Forthisparticularcase,thosesolutionswerefrontageroadmodificationsandlocalstreetconnectionstoimproveaccesstoadjacentdevelopment,alongwithsomegeometricchangestoreduceconflictpoints.)
COR‐6:ApproveRangeofSolutionSets
12. Considerbringingone‐ormoreprogramming‐relatedpolicyquestionsfromCOR‐8intoCOR‐7andCOR‐6.Suchquestionsinclude(1)“Docandidatesolutionsetshaveenoughdetailtoallowtheidentificationoffundingsources?”and(2)“Whataretheprioritizationcriteriaestablishedforprogramming?”
Rationalefortherecommendation
COR‐8showspolicyquestionsthatask,inrelationtootherPlanWorksphases,“Whataretheprioritizationcriteriaestablishedforprogramming?Areourcriteriacompatiblewiththat?Docandidatesolutionsetshaveenoughdetailtoallowtheidentificationoffundingsources?”Whileitisconceptuallylogicaltodrawadividinglinebetweenthedevelopmentandselectionofsolutions(COR‐6andCOR‐7)andtheprioritizationofprojects(COR‐8),thelimitedfundingopportunitiesforsomecorridorprojectsmeansthatthemannerinwhichprojectsareprogrammedmustbeconsideredthroughoutthedevelopmentofthepotentialsolutionsets.Itisespeciallycriticaltoconsiderhowprojectsareprogrammedifitisexpectedthatmultiplefundingsourceswillbeneededtoimplementthesolutionset.(Forexample,forthisparticularcorridor,someprojectsarebeingpursuedthroughHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram[HSIP]fundswhereasothersarecandidatesforVirginia’sstatewideprogrammingprocess,knownasSmartScale).Becauseeachofthesefundingsourceshastheirowndatarequirements,itwasessentialinthisefforttoconsiderthe“criteriaforprogramming”(posedinCOR‐8)atthetimethecandidatesolutionsetsweredeveloped—thatis,inCOR‐6.
Tobeclear,PlanWorksdoesconnecttheprogrammingprocess(the“PRO”steps)andthecorridorplanningprocess(the“COR”steps).Forexample,understepCOR‐8,the“linkstodecisions”boxontheleftofthescreenprovidesaconnectionfromCOR‐8toPRO‐2,whereoneconsiderscriteriaforallocatingrevenue,asshowninFigureA1.However,byaddingapolicyquestiondirectlytoCOR‐6and
17
COR‐7thatrelatestoprogramming,onemayincreasethelikelihoodthatprojectswillbedevelopedsuchthattheymeettheinformationrequirementsforavailablefundingsources.Forthiscorridorinparticular,becauseVirginia’sSmartScaleisalikelyfundingsourceforatleastsomeimprovements,keySmartScalecriteriamustbeconsideredearlyintheprocesssuchaspointsresultingfromthetraveltimereliabilityindex,equivalentpropertydamageonlyreductionoffatalandinjurycrashes,andthereductioninpersonhoursofdelay.Inparticular,becausetheoverallscoreiscalculatedasthetotalpointsdividedbytheprojectcost,the“bangforthebuck”highlyinfluenceswhetheraprojectwillbefunded.Realistically,plannersmustconsidertheseprogrammingcriteriaearlyintheprocess—whencandidatesolutionsetsarebeingdeveloped—iftheywanttoseeprojectsmovetoimplementationunderthisfundingsource.
FigureA1.ExampleofaLinkBetweenCorridorPlanning(COR‐8)andProgramming(PRO‐2).
TounderstandwhythisrecommendationmaybeneededfortheCORsteps,contrastcorridorstudies(e.g.,theCORsteps)withlongrangeplanningstudies(e.g.,theLRPsteps).Forthelatter,theMPOroutinelyconsidersalargevarietyofprojectsinthedevelopmentofthelongrangeplanandthen,throughcarefulconsiderationofavailablefunds,placesprojectsintheshorterrangeTransportationImprovementProgram.Theselongrangeplanningprocessesandprogrammingprocessesareinstitutionalizedandperformedonalargescale:thereisanexpectationeveryyearthatsubstantialagencyresourceswillbedevotedtoupdatingprojectsintheTIP,and(everyfiveyears)updatingthelongrangeplan.Forthatreason,havingalongplanningprocess(LRPsteps)andaprogrammingprocess(PROsteps)thatareseparateprocessesinPlanWorksmakessense—withinastateDOTorlargeMPO,thesetwoprocessesmaybeperformedbytwoseparategroupsofstaff.Theseprocessesarethenconnectedatformaldecisionpoints:forexample,LRP‐10,whichiswheretheMPOadoptsthelongrangetransportationplan,showsunder“LinkstoDecisions”aconnectionbetweentheLRPandthreemajorprogrammingsteps:projectprioritization,approvetheTIP,andincorporatetheTIPintotheSTIP.However,corridorprojects—especiallythosethatmaybe“stuck”—arenotinstitutionalizedanddonotnecessarilyhaveaspecificpointatwhichadecisionmustbemade.WhereasalongrangetransportationplaniseventuallytranslatedintoasetofprojectsforaTIP,thereisnorequirementthatthisbeperformedforacorridorplan.Thus,forcorridorprojectstomoveforward—especiallyinaneraoflimitedfunds—plannersneedtobecognizantofpotentialfundingsourcesandtheirassociatedrequirements.Thisrecognitionneedstobeperformedearly:plannersmustbeprovidingenoughdatainthedevelopmentofcandidatesolutionsets(COR‐6)suchthattheseprojectsatleasthavetheopportunitytobefunded.
18
COR‐7:AdoptPreferredSolutionSet
13. AddafeedbackloopbetweenCOR‐9andCOR‐7.Inorderforatransportationagencytodevelopfeasibleprojectsbasedonacorridorplanningprocess,thecriteriaforschedulingandprioritizinginvestments(e.g.,theresultsofCOR‐9)mustbeexplicitlyconsideredintheselectionofthepreferredsolutionset(inCOR‐7).FailuretodothiscouldresultinasetofimprovementsemanatingfromCOR‐7thatultimatelyareinfeasible.Thus,asshowninFigureA2,afeedbackloopthatemphasizestheimportanceofconsideringCOR‐7throughCOR‐9simultaneouslyshouldbeadded.
FigureA2.SuggestedFeedbackLoopbetweenCOR‐7andCOR‐9.AdaptedfromFHWA.PlanWorksDecisionGuide,Washington,D.C.https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/DecisionGuide.AccessedFebruary2,2017.
COR‐8:ApproveEvaluationCriteria,MethodsandMeasuresforPrioritizationofProjects
14. Considerseparatingmajorquestionsfromthedetailsthatcanbeprovided.FuturedeploymentsofPlanWorksmightbenefitfromashorterquestionstem(suchasthoseshownintherightcolumnsofTableA1)andthenaseparatesectionthatlistsoptionaldetailforeachquestion.Forexample,whenworkingwithdiversepartnersinperson,itwaseasiertoaskashort,generalquestion(suchas“Whatfactorsinfluenceprioritization”)andthentobepreparedtospecifythat“factors”mightmeanspecificperformancemeasures(whichinthisprojectincludedmeasurableitemssuchastheamountofdelayatvariousintersectionsbasedon2040volumes).Tobeclear,thedetailinthePlanWorksquestionscanbequitehelpfulintermsofprovidingabreadthofconsiderations(e.g.,accessibilitytojobs,equity,andbicyclenetworkconnectivitycanallberelevantindifferentcorridors).ByseparatingthedetailfromthecorequestionsinCOR‐8andCOR‐9,thegeneralintentofthequestionscanbeclarified.TableA1.RevisedPlanWorksQuestions
No. OriginalPlanWorksQuestion QuestionUsedbytheTeam1 Areperformancemeasures,evaluationcriteriaandmethodologyfor
assessingbicycleandpedestriannetworkconnectivity,accessibility(tojobs,schools,essentialservices,recreation,etc.),equity,andsafetyincorporatedintotheprojectprioritizationprocess?
Whatfactorsinfluenceprioritization?
2 Whodevelopedtheprioritizationevaluationcriteriaandmethodology?[COR‐8]andHowwerestakeholders,includingmodalandoperationalpartners,engagedinprovidinginputandrecommendations?[COR‐9]
Howdoesthisprioritizationprocessreflectstakeholders’input?
Revisesolutionsetbasedonadditionalinformationfrom
settingpriorities
19
COR‐9:AdoptprioritiesforimplementationTherearenoadditionalrecommendationsforthissectionexceptrecommendation13asdiscussedpreviously(afeedbackloopbetweenCOR‐7andCOR‐9).Withthisfeedbackloop,thequestionscommontoCOR‐7,COR‐8,andCOR‐9canbeconsideredjointlythroughouttheprocess.
UsingthePlanWorksAssessment
15. WhenusingtheresultsoftheCorridorAssessment,itmaybeeasiertoentertheworst‐casescenariosoneatatimeandthenidentifythePlanWorksrecommendationsratherthanenteringthesurveyresponsesallatonce.Intheory,thePlanWorksassessmentsareintendedtobecompletedonline,wherestakeholdersorpartnersreceiveimmediatefeedbackfromtheprocess.However,theprojectteamusedtheassessmentquestionsinaslightlydifferentway:publicparticipantsweregiventhequestionsbutthentheassessmentwasusedtoidentifywherethegreatestamountofimprovementwasneeded.Forexample,considertheresponseto“Thedecision‐makingprocessisclear”whichgavethelowestaveragescore(2.9receivedinthesurvey).Tousetheassessmentresults,onecangotothetwoPlanWorkselementswhichwerethesourceofthatquestionandsimplyentera“StronglyDisagree”forbothofthose(FigureA3)andthenusetheappropriatefeedbackfromPlanWorks(FigureA4).NotethattomakefulluseofthePlanWorksAssessment,oneneedstokeeptrackoftheoriginalPlanWorkselement(e.g.,thetwolinesshowninFigureA3)andthemodifiedquestiongiventothepublic(e.g.,thefirstquestioninFigureA5).
FigureA3.PlanWorksElementsinSupportofQuestion1(“Thedecision‐makingprocessisclear.”)
FigureA4.ExcerptofPlanWorksRecommendationstoClarifytheDecision‐MakingProcess
Theprocessstepsareclearlystated/documented
Thecollectivegoalsareclearlystatedanddocumented
Clickingonthelinksattheleftleadstotextsuggestingan“organizationaloutcomemap”whichledtheprojectteamtoconsiderahandoutatthe3rdpublicmeetingshownasFigure2inthebodyofthisreport.
PlanWorksElement
21
AppendixB.SummaryofHowPlanWorksWasImplementedfortheRoute29CorridorAssessment
AppendixBshowshowthenineCORmoduleswereappliedfortheRoute29Assessment.AsisthecasewithAppendixA,materialispresentedbymoduleforconsistencywithPlanWorks,althoughinpracticetherewereseveralcaseswheremoduleswerepursuedintandem.ForeachCOR,therearetwosubsections:theoutcomesofapplyingtheCORandthestepstakenaspartoftheCOR.(Additionaldetails,ifneeded,areavailablefromtheauthorsintheformofindividualtaskreportsprovidedtoFHWA.)COR‐1:ScopeoftheCorridorPlanningProcessOutcomesofCOR‐1
ThegeographicalscopeoftheplanningprocessistheRoute29CorridorwithinCampbellCountyfrom
theCityofLynchburg(Route29/640interchange)toRoute24(theMPOboundary).
Thetemporalscopeisaninemonthstudy,withthegoalbeingtohaveaplanofactionbytheendof2016thattheCountyBoardofSupervisorscanusetoidentifylocalprioritiesforfundingwhichwouldsubmittedtoVDOT.
Thetechnicalscoperemainsopenbutwilldrawheavilyuponexistingwork:notablyfivepreviousstudiesinthecorridor,withthenewercontributionsfromthiseffortbeinggearedtowardreducingconflictpointsandsupportivelandusestrategies.
Theplanningprocessscopeisthattherewillnotbeacitizens’technicaladvisorycommitteewhichcouldinadvertentlyrestrictparticipation;rather,everycitizenwillbeabletoparticipateintheplanningprocessthroughattendingpublicmeetings.Mailings,messageboardsadvertisingthemeeting,andsocialmediawillbeusedtocommunicatetheplanningprocessandmaximizepublicinvolvement.
StepsTakeninCOR‐1
MeetwithakeymemberoftheBoardofSupervisorsonDecember15,2016ThetwoBOSmemberswithsupervisoryauthoritywithinthescopeoftheproject—Dr.JamesBorlandandMr.EricZehr—wereinvitedtoattendanin‐personmeetingfortheproject.(Mr.Zehrwasunabletoattend,however,Dr.Borlandandthecounty’sEconomicDevelopmentDirector,Mr.MikeDavidson,wereabletoattendandwerebriefedabouttheprojectthroughapresentationbyRickYoungblood[districtplannerforVDOT]andJudieTalbot[UniversityofVirginiaInstituteforEnvironmentalNegotiation]).SlideswerenotusedforthepresentationbutratherpresentershighlightedkeypointsoftheprojectastheyrelatetoCOR‐1andCOR‐2.Forexample,underCOR‐1,akeypolicyquestionis“Howwillstakeholders,includingmodalandoperationalpartners,andthepublicbeinvolved?”Thisparticularpointwasofinteresttothetwoboardmembers,whohighlightedtheneedforlandownerstohaveeveryopportunitytoattendpublicmeetingsfortheproject,andwasafactorintheplanningpartners’decisiontonotconveneasmallertechnicaladvisorygroupimmediatelybutratherallowallindividualstoparticipate.
Agreeinternallyonthescopeoftheproject.
22
In‐personmeetingsoftheinternalpartnersheldonDecember7and14(2015),andJanuary4(2016alongwithaconferencecallonJanuary11,(2016),helpeddevelopagreementontheenvironmentfortheproject.Forexample,considerthetwopolicyquestionsfromCOR‐1andCOR‐2,whicharerespectively:“Whoaretheproponentsandopponents?”and“Arethereidentifiedperformancemeasureanddatasourcesforevaluationofstrategies?”Regardingthefirstquestion,planningstaffwithCampbellCountywereabletonotethatthereweretwolikelyviewpointsthatwouldshapethediscussion:businesseswhowanttoshiptheirproductsoutofthearea,andbusinessesthatwanttousethecorridorforlocalaccess.Staffalsorecognizedthatanyrestrictionsplacedonwhatapropertyownercandowillbescrutinized,placingimportanceongettingagreementearlyonintheprocess.Regardingthesecondquestion,theVDOTdistrictplannernotedthatmuchofthetechnicalworkmayhavealreadybeenaccomplishedinpreviousstudies,includingthosedonefortherecentconstrainedlongrangeplan(CLRP).Whilesomeupdatesofthesestudyrecommendationsmaybenecessary,akeypartofthestrategywillbetothinkabouthowtouselandusetoolssuchaswaiversandexceptionrequests(andtheselectedconsultanthasexpertiseinthisarea.)
COR‐2:ApproveProblemStatementsandOpportunitiesOutcomesofCOR‐2
Keydeficienciesinthecorridorincludethefollowing(notlistedinpriorityorder).First,thereisnoticeablecongestionduringthepeakhour.ThiscongestioncontributestoatleasttwodifferentnegativeimpactscitedbyattendeesattheJanuary28,2016publicmeeting:(1)itcanbedifficulttoaccessbusinesses,suchashotels,duringthepeakhour;and(2)thecongestionslowsdownthroughmovementsbothforcommutersandthroughtravelersSecond,therearepotentialsafetyhazards.Someofthesehazardsmaybeinresponsetocongestion;oneattendeereferredtoaportionofthecorridoras“murderous”wherethereareseveralaccesspointsincloseproximitytooneanother.However,inresponsetothiscomment,anotherattendeenotedapotentialsafetyhazardthatcouldresultwhenthereisnotcongestion:largetrucksoftenneedtoturnaroundinaportionofthecorridor,andthiscreatesahazardgiventhatsomevehiclesaretravelingat60mph.Atanothertable,anattendeecitedafatalcrashintheportionofthecorridorwherethereisaschoolentrance.Third,someturnlanesaretooshort.Fourth,thedevelopmentreviewprocesscanbetimeconsumingforlandownersinthecorridor.Thisisalsoanopportunity:duringthemeeting,itwasnotedthat“timeismoney”andthataclearervisionofhowthecorridorshouldbedevelopedcouldexpeditereviews,savingboththeprivateandpublicsectortime.
Potentialopportunitiesincludethefollowing(notlistedinpriorityorder).Severalpotentialtransportationopportunitieshavebeennoted:improvedaccessmanagementthroughtheconsolidationofcommercialdriveways,additionoffrontageroads,andsomeattendeesexpressedaninterestinalternativeroutes.
23
Theremaybeopportunitiesforpubliceducation.Forexample,onecommentmadepriortothemeetingwastheregulationsonestablishmentofsignswithinthecorridor.Whilearestrictionexistsintermsofsignsizewithinthesetbackarea,itrecentlychangedandmanypeoplemaybeunaware(e.g.,themaximumsignsizeisnow100squarefeetwithamaximumheightof20feetforafree‐standingsign–thisisanincreasefrom32squarefeetand15feetinheight).Also,oneindividualthoughtthatsignsizeappliedtosignsplacedonthebuildingsthemselves.(Thisisnotthecase:thereisnoadditionallimitonthesignsizeassociatedwiththeTCOwhenthesignisattachedtothebuilding;seethecounty’smemorandumofMay15,2007.)Theremaybeopportunitiestoobtainfundingforimprovements.Underthecurrentenvironment,Virginia’sdecision‐makingprocessforselectingtransportationprojects—knownasHB2[whichwaslaterrenamedtoSmartScale]—tendstofavorprojectsthatboth(1)havestatewideramificationsand(2)strongcommunitysupport.GiventhatRoute29isacorridorofstatewidesignificance,andgiventheBoard’sinvolvementatthisstage(includingtheBoardandthecommunityinthedevelopmentofalistofrecommendedprojects),thelikelihoodoffundingmaybeincreased.Theremaybeopportunitiestoimprovetransportationinotherlocationsinthearea.AkeypointwasmadethatbyinvestingintheRoute29Corridor(inCampbellCounty)onecanreduceheavytrucktrafficinotherlocations(e.g.,MadisonHeights).
StepsTakeninCOR‐2
MeetwithkeypublicstakeholdersonJanuary28,2016
Atwohourmeetingwithanestimated42stakeholders(whosignedin)washeldonJanuary28thatHylandHeightsBaptistChurch,whichislocatedwithinthestudycorridor.Anadditional13staffwerepresent.Themeetingwasadvertisedinthelocalpaper,lettersweresentto140stakeholderswholiveinthecorridor,variablemessageboardssignswerereservedtodisplaymeetinginformation(howeveranimpendingseverewinterstormoneweekbeforethemeetingpreventedtheirdeployment),andawebsitewithprojectinformationwasdeveloped;thewebaddressishttp://www.virginiadot.org/projects/lynchburg/route_29__corridor.asp.Atthemeeting,theprojectwasintroducedasonewhereattendeeswouldbebriefedratherthan“talkedat”fortwohours—toprovideopportunitiesforthem,thestakeholderstoprovideinput(Figure1inthebodyofthereport).Attendeesweregivenabusinesscardwiththewebaddressandadrawingofthecorridor(FigureB1,left),toencouragefollow‐upafterthemeeting.Duringthemeeting,attendeeswereaskedtoprovideinputbyidentifying,onlargescalemaps,deficienciesinthecorridorbyusingpost‐itnotesandplacingthemonthemap(seeFigureB2foranexampleofresultsofthatexercise).Duringthepresentationthetransportationroleofthecorridor(wherethecorridorisofstatewideimportanceforthroughmovements)andtheeconomicroleofthecorridor(asalocalaccesspointforbusinesses)werenoted,andattendeeswerebriefedthatmultiplestudiesofthecorridorpointedtotheneedforacollaborativeapproachgivenlimitedfundsavailableforcorridorimprovements.Then,75chairsand8tableswerearrangedforattendees,alongwithlarge‐scalemapsonwhichindividualscouldplacepost‐itnotesof3differentcolorswiththeirwrittencommentsonwhattheylikedaboutthecorridor,whattheydidn’tlikeaboutthecorridor,orotherideas/commentsaboutthecorridor..Inpractice,manycasesattendeeschosetomaketheircommentsaloudandthenhavestaff(internalpartnersandtheirassociates)writethemdownandplacethemataspecificlocationonthemap.AkeypointofthepresentationwastheSHRP2PlanWorksplanningprocessbeingused,withanemphasisthattherewouldbeatleastthreepublicmeetings:January28th(todevelopavision);a
24
secondmeeting(todiscusspossiblesolutionsets—e.g.,prosandcons,arethereotherideastheinternalpartnersdidnotconsider?)andathirdmeetingwheretheinternalpartnerswoulddescribeaproposalforapreferredsolutionset(terminologyusedinCOR‐7ofPlanWorks).Insumtheinitialpublicmeetingwasaimedtobeatwo‐wayconversation.Forexample,considertheroleofaccessmanagement.Attendeesweregivensomeexamplesofrecentsuccessinthecorridor:thepresentationshowedhowtwosignalizedentrances—onetoaWalmartandonetoanadjacentSam’sClub—wereconvertedtoright‐inright‐outmovementsonly,withanew(single)accesspointreplacingthesetwoaccesspoints(FigureB1,right).Then,attendeesprovidedcommentsrelatingtohowbetteraccessneededtobeprovidedforcertainbusinesses.
FigureB1.(Left).DrawingoftheCorridoronaBusinessCardGiventoAttendeesattheFirstPublicMeeting.(Thereversesideofthecardhasthewebaddressthroughwhichpubliccommentsmaybedistributed.Theactualcorridorwillonlybethenorthernportion,fromLynchburgtotheMPOboundary).(Right).Exampleofaccessmanagement,wherethenorthandsouthentrances(square)wereconvertedtoright‐in/right‐out,withleftturnsconsolidatedtothesinglemiddleentrance(circle).
25
FigureB2.ExamplesofDeficienciesIdentifiedattheFirstPublicMeeting(January28,2016)
COR‐3:ApproveGoalsfortheCorridorOutcomesofCOR‐3
Publicinputindicatesthattherearethreekeyareasofconcernforthecorridor:safety,economic
development,andcongestion.
TheseparateCampbellCountyRoute29PlanningEffortFindingsReportshowsthatstakeholdersidentifiedspecificareasofconcerninallthreeareas.Forcongestion,individualsexpresslynotedthattheydidnotwanttoseespeedsdeterioratefurthersuchthattheareasuffereddelayscomparabletomoreurbanizedareasoftheCommonwealth.Safetyissuesarearguablyparamount:somecommentsdirectlyrelatetoincreasedtrafficvolumes(i.e.,onefirmhasadoptedapolicythattrucksmaynotchangelanes),andsomeconcernsaredrivenalsobygeometricconsiderations(i.e.,locationofcrossoversandneededturninglanestoseparateflows).Economicdevelopmentisviewedbothasbothdesirableandasituationthatmustbemitigated,withquestionsabouttheabilityoftheregiontoaccommodategrowthintraveldemand.
Long turn lane is good, but fills up quickly in AM with
students going to parking lots.
Where businesses are built, consider requesting
proffer of a turn lane on their property.
More and more dangerous
2‐lanes on bridge hampers traffic.
Access to Liberty property is currently extremely difficult
as there is no turn going S. and N. turns are prohibited.
Could you use an overpass for a bypass (like
Richmond did)?
Longerturnlaneneeded
26
StepsTakeninCOR‐3
Asstatedinthebodyofthereport,COR‐3wasappliedthroughfourmajorsteps:holdapublicmeetingatwhichparticipantsprovidedearlyfeedbackbasedonCOR‐1andCOR‐2;identifycandidateintervieweesinboththepublicandprivatesector;developquestionsforinterviewsofpartnersandadvisorsbasedonCOR‐3;andconductinterviewswithstakeholders.
Inadditiontomembersoftheprojectteam,participantsintheseseparateinterviewsincludedBankerSteel,Boxley,FirstNationalBank,FosterFuels,GeorgiaPacific,GreaterLynchburgTransitCompany,HighlandHeightsBaptistChurch,LibertyUniversity,LynchburgRegionalAirport,LynchburgRegionalBusinessAlliance,Moore’sElectricalandMechanical,andNealbrookChips.TheCampbellCountyRoute29PlanningEffortFindingsReportlistscommentsbasedontheinterviews,aswellascommentsfromthefirstpublicmeeting,onasection‐by‐sectionbasisforthecorridor.Forexample,forthesectionbetweenCalohanRoadandRoute24,deficienciesincludeamediancrossingwheretherehavebeencollisions,conflictsatsomeunsignalizedintersectionsgiventhe60mphspeedlimit,andaccessviaanothermediancrossingtotwobusinessesinparticular.
Theresultsoftheinterviews(UVAIEN,2016)andthepublicmeetingunderscoredapointraisedinthereviewofpreviousstudiesbyAECOM(2016)inthatspecificsolutionswereneeded.Itwasatthisstageoftheprocessthattheteambegantoviewthecorridorasdiscretesections;asshowninFigureB3,thereweresixspecificsegmentsofthecorridorthatcouldbeanalyzed.(ThisfedCOR‐4directly.)
FigureB3.SixStudySegmentsoftheCorridor(VDOTGISIntegrator)
27
COR‐4:ReachConsensusonScopeofEnvironmentalReviewandAnalysis
OutcomesofCOR‐4
Aninitiallistofsixelements—goals,stakeholdercomments,objectives,performancemeasures,quantitativetools,andkeydatadetails—wasdevelopedasshowninTableB1.
Intheory,onlythegoals(whichcomefromCOR‐3andthefindingsintheCampbellCountyRoute29PlanningEffortFindingsReport)andthedataneeds(whichcomefromCOR‐4)arerequiredforthistask,withtheperformancemeasuresandquantitativetoolsforthcomingfromCOR‐5.However,developmentofthesesixelementsenabledtheteamtobetterunderstandwhichdataelementsforCOR‐4couldbethemostmeaningful.Severalcommentsfromthepublicinputmeetingsrelateexpresslytotransportationsafety—afindingnotnecessarilyexpectedatthetimetheteamsoughtthegrantfromFHWAandafindingwhichplacesmoreemphasisongeometricimprovementsthanoriginallyanticipated.Thus,onedataneedthathasbecomeapparentisafairlydetailedunderstandingofhowthephysicalandoperationalcharacteristicsofthecorridor(lanewidth,turningmovements,signaltimings,andpossiblysightdistance)changebycorridorsection.
Itmaybeappropriatetodividethecorridorintosixdiscretesegmentsforanalysis.
Thestakeholderinterviewssuggestthattheapplicationofperformancemeasures,quantitativetools,andsupportingdatasetsmay,insomecases,beperformedonsixdiscretesegmentsasshowninFigureB3:(1)LynchburgCityLimittoLibertyMountainDrive(Route1405);(2)LibertyMountainDrivetoRussellWoods(Route679);(3)RussellWoodstoLawyersRoad(Route683);(4)LawyersRoadtoEnglishTavernRoad’snorthernterminus(Route738),(5)EnglishTavernRoad’snorthernterminustoCalohanRoad(Route685),and(6)CalohanRoadtoColonialHighway(Route24).Examplesofspecificimprovementssuggestedbystakeholdersforeachsectionincludeaddingaccelerationlanes,closingmediancrossings,addingspeedlimits,lengtheningturnlanes,addingsignals,improvingsignaltimings,andaddingserviceroads.
StepsTakeninCOR‐4
Chapter9,titledTransportationSystemsandFacilities,fromtheCampbellCountyComprehensivePlanwaschosenasastartingpointforidentifyingcommunityvalues.ThePlanidentifiestwogoals:(1)“promoteasafe,effective,andenvironmentallysoundtransportationsystemthroughoutCampbellCounty”and(2)“promoteatransportationsystemcompatiblewithexistingandfutureplannedlanduses.”Thesetwogoalswereusedbytheprojectmanagementteamtoidentifypossiblegoals,objectives,performancemeasures,quantitativeapproaches,andrelevantkeydatadetailsasshowninTableB1.InformationgiveninthePlanofferedguidancefordevelopingtheseperformancemeasures.Forexample,theimportanceofaccommodatingtrucktraffic(giventhegeneralfreightcarriersinthearea)andconnectingRoute29tothegeneralfreightterminalusedbytheNorfolkSouthernrailway(whichoffersfreightservicefromrailtoroadatthatterminal)offereddetailforbetterunderstandingthesecondgoalinthePlan.Asanotherexample,oneofthepriorityprojectsfor(fromtheMPO’s2010bicycleplanwhichisreferencedinthePlan)wastohavesigningonRoute29withawideoutsidelane(whichcouldaccommodatebicyclists).Accordingly,aperformancemeasurebasedonbicyclelevelofservice(whichconsidersthewidthofthatcurblane)hasbeenincludedinTableB1.Asathirdexample,thePlanhighlightsthechallengeofcongestiononU.S.29betweenEnglishTavernRoadandtheborderwiththeCityofLynchburg,withtrafficvolumesapproaching44,000vehiclesperday.BecausethePlanemphasizesthemanagementofaccessasonetoolforaccommodatingthesevolumes,measuresrelatedtoaccessareincludedinTableB1.
28
TableB1.CandidatePerformanceMeasuresandDataNeeds(DevelopedinCOR‐3andCOR‐4,butRevisedinCOR‐5)
Goal StakeholderComments Objective PerformanceMeasure(s) QuantitativeTools Keydatadetails
Promoteasafetransportsystemthroughoutthecounty.
Roadworkcrewsafetymustbeconsideredaswellasmotorists.HighvolumeoftrucktrafficintheareathatcausessafetyconcernsSignalsareneededtoprovidesafegapsinthetrafficstream.VisibilitymayberestrictedbyguardrailoverthetraintracksandacrestintheintersectionatEnglishTavernRoadLackofaccelerationwhenturningoutofamediancausestravelproblems
Reducemotorvehiclecrashrisk
CrashespermileCrashesofacertaintype(rear‐endcrashes)CrashesinvolvingtrucksCrashesnearspotsofreducedvisibility
NCHRPReport420(relateaccesspointstocrashrisk)
Crashhistoryinthecorridor:229crashesfortheperiodJanuary1,2010‐October27,2015
Numberofstops(oranotherperformancemeasure)
SimTraffic/Synchrosoftware(evaluatenearmisses)
Crashesarenotalwayscomplete(hencesimulationresultsmaybeneeded)
Reducenon‐motorizedcrashrisk
BicycleCompatibilityIndexBicycleLevelofServiceQualityofpedestrianaccessfortransitstoplocationsNumberofcrashesinworkzones
StandardmethodsforapplyingBLOSandBCIareavailable(includingsomeonlinetools)TransitCapacityandQualityofServiceManualchapters4and5
VDOT’sStatewidePlanningSystem(SPS)providesBLOSasabaselinemeasurewhichcanhelpcalibratecalculatedvaluesItmaybemoremeaningfultosimplyindicate“yes/no”intermsofavailabilityofpedestrianfeatures;GISdatamaybeappropriate.
29
Goal StakeholderComments Objective PerformanceMeasure(s) QuantitativeTools Keydatadetails
Promoteaneffectivetransportsystemthroughoutthecounty.
TrafficsignalsimpedetheflowoftrafficTrafficsignaltimingdoesnotaccountforaccelerationoftrucksTurningtrucksimpedetrafficbecausetheyrequiremorethanonelaneTurningvehiclesatCalohanRdformaqueuethatextendstotheleftpassinglane
Reducedelay Numberoftimespeaktraveltimeinthecorridorisbelow20minutesasmeasuredfromAtoBTimespentattrafficsignalsDelaycausedbytrucksattrafficsignals
SimTraffic/Synchrosoftware(reportsdelayasafunctionofvolume)
ShouldthelimitsofthecorridorbeEnglishTavernRoadtoRoute460?
Improvereliability
Coefficientofvariationoftravelspeeds[VariousothermeasuresinTask4]PlanningTimeIndexBufferIndexMiseryIndexSkewStatistic
Varianceinspeedsfromsimulationrunsifthatisreasonable
Anycalibrationdatachallengeswouldbenotedhere.
Promoteanenvironmentallysoundtransportsystemthroughoutthecounty.
[Thetopicoftheenvironmentwasnotmentionedduringthestakeholderinterviews]
Improveairquality
Greenhousegasemissions(kgofCO2)
SumtotalfuelconsumptionfromSimTraffic/Synchro(foragivenvolume)andconverttoCO2emissions
ShouldwejustuseCO2orshouldweconsiderVOCsandNOx(whicharegivenbySynchro)Isasimpleconversion(say10kgofCO2pergallonoffuel)acceptable?
Promoteatransportationsystemcompatiblewithexistingandfuturelanduses
EwingDrivewilllikelyneedasignalduetoeconomicdevelopment(althoughthisis1.5milessouthofthecorridor)
Improvevehicularaccesstopointsinthecorridorforpassengertravel
Delayforturningleftandrightintocertainbusinesses
StoppeddelayatagivenintersectionforleftorrightturningvehiclesDelaytoreachthemainlinefromtheminorstreet
Atwhatpointsshoulddelaybecomputed(e.g.,eachintersectionorforkeybusinesses)?
30
Goal StakeholderComments Objective PerformanceMeasure(s) QuantitativeTools Keydatadetails
Improvepedestrianaccesstopointswithinthecorridor
Connectivityindex(orsomeothermeasureindicatingtheextenttowhichstreetsareinterconnected)Tabulatethenumberofparcelswhereconnectionpointsforpedestriansexist
PossiblyaGISlayeroflocallanddevelopment
Asthispertainstofuturelanduse,somedatadetailsmaybemissingfromanticipatedfuturedevelopment
Improvefreightaccesswithinthecorridor
TraveltimetotheNorfolkSoutherngeneralfreightfacility(whichofferspiggybackservicefortrucktorail
SimTraffic/Synchrosoftware(reportsdelayasafunctionofvolume)
Thefromwhichtravelshouldbemeasuredisrelevant
Provideanequallevelofimprovementstoallresidentsofthecorridor.
Impactsonhighandlowincomeareas:aretheythesame
Usecensusdatatoidentifyhighandlowincomeareas.Usethesimulationmodeltodetermineiftheseareasareimpactedequally.
IsCensusincomedataavailableattheblocklevel(orlevelsuitableforanalysis?)CanSynchro/SimTrafficbeusedtoidentifypositiveandnegativeimpactsinthecorridor
31
COR‐5:ApproveEvaluationCriteria,MethodsandMeasuresOutcomesofCOR‐5
Therearetwopromisingtraditionalwaysofassessingreliability:theplanningtimeindexandthebufferindex.Bothhavebeenappliedtothiscorridorandwillbeabaselineforfuturemeasures.Forexample,foramotoristtravelingtoworktoavoidarrivinglate90percentofthetime(thatisduringallbuttheworstpeakperiodtravelinagivenmonth),theestimatedplanningtimeindexindicatedthat,whentravelingnorthboundinthemorningpeakhourorsouthboundintheeveningpeakhour,theexpectedtraveltimeshouldbeincreasedbyafactorof1.4overthefree‐flowtraveltime(e.g.,usingthespeedlimit.)Anotherinterpretationofthe90thpercentilevalueintheplanningtimeindexisthatassumingapproximately20workingdayspermonth,the1.4multipliershouldbeusedbycommuterswhocannotaffordtobelatemorethantwiceamonth.Further,thebufferindex(90thpercentile)showsthat,ifacommutercannotaffordtobelatetoworkmorethantwicepermonth,heorsheshouldpresumethathisorhermediandailycommutetimewillneedtoincreasebyroughly25%andadjusthisorherdeparturetimeaccordingly.Acharacteristicofthesetwoindicesisthattheycanbedominatedbyrecurringcongestion.(Ifonlyoneofthesemetricscouldbechosen,thentherecommendationwouldbetochoosethebufferindex.)
Crashriskoffersapromisingnontraditionalwayofassessingreliability.
Whileanincreaseinrushhourtraveltimemaybeexpected,crashescanleadtounexpecteddecreasesinspeedsinthecorridor.TheStrategicHighwayResearchProgram(SHRP2)listssafetyasoneoftheimportantperformancemetricstostudyreliabilityonagivencorridor,asawayofdetectingnonrecurringcrashes.Asabaselineofcurrentconditions,thetotalnumberofcrashes(fatal,injury,andpropertydamageonly)andinjurycrashes,aswellastherateintermsofnumberofcrashespermillionvehiclemilestraveledshowshighercrashratesintheportionofthecorridorwithlessreliability,whichisthenorthernsegmentbetweenEnglishTavernRoadandRoute460.Surrogatemeasuresthatcanhelpquantifythiscrashriskincludethenumberofstops(fromtheSimTrafficsimulationpackage)andthenumberofaccesspointspermile.
Candidateperformancemeasuresare(inadditiontotheplanningtimeindex,thebufferindex,access
pointspermile,andnumberofstops)thedelayforturningleftandrightintocertainbusinesses,andthefeasibilityofconstructingtheproposedalternatives.WhilethepublicmeetingheldJune23,2016didnotpositivelyconfirmorrefutethesemeasures,informalcommentsfromparticipantssuggestedthatatthispointintime,itisprematuretoeliminatemetricsfromconsideration.Informalcommentsalsosuggestedthatparticipantsareinterestedinseeingactiononanalternativebetaken:aconcernvoicedbyseveralattendeeswasthatalternativeswhichhavebeendiscussedinyearspast(suchasconstructionofabypass)hadnotbeenimplementedasVDOThasexperiencedfundingshortfallsinsomeyears.Thus,implementationfeasibilityisameasuretobeconsideredwhensolutionsareprioritized(inCOR‐8)(andwhichultimatelydrovethedevelopmentofthedatabasenotedinCOR‐9).
Atthenextpublicmeetingattendeesshouldbeprovidedwithasinglepagehandoutthathastwopiecesofinformation.Thefrontofthehandoutshouldsummarizetheprocessusedtogeneratecandidatesolutions—e.g.,establishmentofgoals,performancemeasures,anddevelopmentofacandidatesolutionsunderthelimitationofavailablefunds.Thebackofthehandoutshouldsummarizeafewexamplesofhow
32
publicinputwasincorporateddirectlyintothesolutions.Thisrecommendationisbasedontheresultsofthecorridorassessment.
Attendeesexpressedastronginterestinsomeactionsthatmaybefeasible.
Somecommentssupportedrelativelyexpensiveinfrastructure:ofthe53commentsrecordedonthepinmapofimprovements(seeFigureB4),sevenreferredtoabypassandothers(e.g.,anewroadconnectionconsistingofaramptothebypassatRustburgor“removeamajority(ifnotall)trafficlightsleadingintoandoutofLynchburg”maynotbedoableinfull.Furtherafewothercomments(electronicspeedcamerasoraliquorlicenseforaparticularestablishment)areoutsidethestudyscope.However,manycommentssupportedspecific,tangiblespotimprovementsthatcanatleastinformcandidatesolutionsetsinCOR‐6suchasreroutingtrafficatRangoonStreet,revisitingthespeedlimitinthecorridor,removingsignals(althoughonecommentsuggestedtheneedforanadditionalsignalatPattersonRoad),allowingrightturnonredatCalohanRoad,makingthesouthernconnectionofEnglishTavernRoadandRoute29right‐in/right‐outonly,addingsidewalks,addingbikelanesnearLynbrookRoad,andimprovingoraddingdecelerationlanesatthemediannorthofAmyRoad/MoormanMillRoad.
FigureB4.ExampleofCommentsfromtheSecondPublicMeeting
StepsTakeninCOR‐5Asshowninthestand‐alonememorandum(AECOM,2016),avarietyofcandidateperformancemeasureswereconsidered.Somewereeliminatedfromconsiderationbecausetheydidnotmeetthecoregoalsofthecountycomprehensiveplan(forexample,thePlandoesnotexplicitlyconsidergreenhousegasemissions).Othermeasureswereeliminatedbecauseofimperfectdata—forexample,whilecoefficientofvariationoftravelspeedsdoesdirectlymeasurereliability,itmaybelessunderstandablethanthenumberofstops.TentativelyrecommendedmetricsareshowninTableB2basedonsynthesizingtheAECOMJune1memorandumandtheperformancemeasurespresentedatthepublicmeetingheldJune23.AtthetimeCOR‐
33
5wascompleted,theteamnotedthat“Itisstillprobablythecasethatnotallmeasureswillultimatelybeused,butthesegiveaframeworkforpresentingthealternativesfromCOR‐6.”Inretrospect,afterCOR‐5wascompleted,despitethediscussionofhowimprovedreliabilitycouldbemeasuredthroughareductionincrashrisk,theteamultimatelyassessedreliabilitythroughamoretraditionalperformancemeasure(atraveltimereliabilityindex[TTRI]).Thisresultedbecauseoftheneedtouseperformancemeasuresassociatedwithfundingsources,andTTRIisusedbyVirginia’sSmartScale.Thus,laterconsiderations(whichcamefromCOR‐7,COR‐8,andCOR‐9)ultimatelymodifiedthemetricsshowninTableB2.Thatsaid,Virginia’scomputationofTTRIdoesusedasurrogateforcrashrisk,asdiscussedinTableB3underCOR‐6.TableB2.TentativelyRecommendedPerformanceMeasuresb
Goal Objective PerformanceMeasure(s) QuantitativeTools
Promoteasafetransportsystemthroughoutthecounty.
Reducemotorvehiclecrashrisk
Crashespermile Numberofrear‐endcrashes
NCHRPReport420(relateaccesspointstocrashrisk)
Numberofstops SimTraffic/Synchrosoftware
(evaluatenumberofstops)
Promoteaneffectivetransportsystemthroughoutthecounty.
Reducedelay
Numberoftimespeaktraveltimeinthecorridorisbelow10minutes
Numberofdrivewayspermileb Numberofmediancrossoversper
mileb
SimTraffic/Synchrosoftware(reportsdelayasafunctionofvolume)
Improvereliability
TravelTimeIndex PlanningTimeIndex BufferTimeIndex
Thethreeindices(traveltime,planningtime,andbuffertime)maybeinfluencedmorebyrecurringcongestion.
Numberofdrivewayspermileb Numberofmediancrossoversper
mileb
Nonrecurringcongestioncanalsobecapturedbythesafetymeasures(e.g.,drivewayspermilenotedpreviously)
Promoteatransportationsystemcompatiblewithexistingandfuturelanduses
Improvevehicularaccesstopointsinthecorridorc
Stoppeddelayatagivenintersectionforleftorrightturningvehiclesintocertainbusinesses
Delaytoreachthemainlinefromtheminorstreet
Onecouldalsoconsiderdelaytoreachthemainlinefromtheminorstreet
aWhileitdoesnotfitintothegoalsandobjectivesperse,thefeasibilityofimplementingasolutionisitselfaperformancemeasure.Thiscanbeaddressedbydetermining,inCOR‐8,ifenoughinformationregardingthesolutionisavailablesothatitcanbepreparedforcandidatefundingsources.bItmaybethecasethatultimatelythesemeasuresarenotcarriedforwardiftheyduplicatetheothermetricsshown.cAnearlierversionofthistablehadtheobjective“improvenonmotorizedaccesstopointsinthecorridor”withaperformancemeasurebeingalevelofservicemeasureforpedestriansandbicyclists.However,becausenonmotorizedaccessimprovementsmaybepartofanypackageofprojects,suchaperformancemeasuremaynothelpdiscriminateamongprojectalternativesandthusisnotshowninTableB2.AnearlierversionoftheperformancemeasuresshowninTableB2werepresentedatthepublicmeetingheldJune23,2016.Thefirstportionofthemeetingconsistedoftwopresentations(FigureB5)withthelatterpart
34
ofthemeetinggivingattendeesachancetoprovidecomments—bothaloudandonhandwrittenmaps(FigureB6).Themeetingwasnotaswellattendedastheinitialpublicmeeting,however,onefactorsmayhavecontributedtothelower‐than‐expectedturnout:aseverestorm(withhail)hadbeenforecastandinfactthisstormstruckduringthemeeting.Becauseoftheloudnoisefromthehail,itwasnecessarytointerruptthepresentationafewtimesuntilthestormsoftenedsuchthatthespeakerscouldbeheard—whichdemonstratedthevalueofthehandouts.TableB2usesContextSensitiveSolutions(CSS)conceptsbutdoesnotshowaspecificCSSperformancemeasure.Rather,fourattributesofCSSareevidentintheperformancemeasures:(1)supportingallusersofthetransportationsystem;(2)reflectingcommunityvalues;(3)integratingsolutionsthroughoutthedesignofsolutionsinCOR‐6;and(4)jointconsiderationoflanduseandtransportationinvestments.Forexample,theapplicationofprinciples1and4isevidentinthatdiverseusers(freight,pedestrian,andbicycle)areconsideredinthegoalofintegratingtransportationandlanduseinvestments.ThegoalsshowninTableB2originatedfromthecountycomprehensiveplan,therebysupportingthesecondCSSprinciple.
FigureB5.(left)PresentationbyPaulHarvey,CampbellCounty;(middle)PresentationbyChrisLawrence,AECOM;(right)attendeeslisteningtothepresentationsattheSecondPublicMeeting.
FigureB6.AttendeesreviewplansafterthepresentationsattheSecondPublicMeeting
35
NotethatseveralcandidateperformancemeasuresnotedinCOR‐3(seeTableB1)wereultimatelynotselectedduetoeitherincompletedata,difficultywithcomputingthemeasure,orconcernsthatthemeasurewouldnotprovideinsightsintoprojectselection: Greenhousegasemissionsaredifficulttoevaluateastrafficcountswereonlytakenatsignalized
intersections,yetmanyoftheproposedchangeswillinvolveunsignalizedintersectionsforwhichwedon’thavetrafficdata.
Asthereislittleinterconnectivityofstreetsatpresent,andbecauseitisnotreasonabletodeterminefuturelandusesindetail,theconnectivityindexwaseliminated.
Nearlyalloftheparcelslackpedestrianfacilities,thustabulationofthenumberofparcelswithpedestrianaccommodationswaseliminated.
ThetraveltimetotheNorfolkSoutherngeneralfreightfacilityisnotknownandappearstoduplicatethereliabilitymetricsthathavebeenchosen.
ImpactsonhighandlowincomeareaswereeliminatedbecausealmosttheentirefrontageofRoute29iseitherzonedbusinessorindustrial;further,measuringtheimpactstotheadjacentresidentialareaswouldbedifficulttoclearlyquantify.
ThesechangesthusledtotheperformancemeasuresshowninTableB2.
COR‐6:ApproveRangeofSolutionSets
OutcomesofCOR‐6
Fourcandidatesolutionsetshavebeenidentified,whereeachsolutionsetidentifiesmultiplesolutions.Incontrasttosomecorridorstudieswhereonemightchooseasinglealternative,thesolutionsetsaredesignedsuchthatoneisnotrequiredtochooseoneparticularset;rather,itisexpectedthatstakeholdersmaychooseelementsfrommultiplesolutionsets.Eachsolutionsethasatheme:(throughput,safety,economicdevelopment,andinnovative[“smart”]approaches).Thefoursolutionsetscontaingeometricchangesrelatingtothespacingofaccesspoints,operationalchangessuchassignalretimingortheinstallationofaflashingyellowarrow,landaccessapproaches,accommodationofpedestrianandbicyclemodesthroughsidewalksandsharedusepaths,andnewtechnologiessuchasatrafficmanagementsystem.FigureB7showshowsomeofthesesolutionsetscompareatoneparticularlocation:Route29andRussellWoodsDrive,oneofseveralintersectionswithinthecorridor.Atthatintersection,solutionsetsoneandtwoshowaccess‐relatedimprovements,suchasclosingthemedian,extendingaleftturnlane,andmakingacommercialdrivewayright‐in/right‐outonly.Atthatsameintersection,solutionset3addsatwo‐wayleftturnlaneandacontinuousrightturnlane,therebyincreasingaccesstobusinesses.Atthatsameintersection,solutionset4addsasharedusebicycle/pedestrianpathforthelengthofthecorridor.Tobeclear,FigureB7onlyshowsthegeometricimprovements;forexample,whilesolutionsets1and2haveidenticalgeometricchangestothatintersection;solutionset2alsoincludesspeedlimitchangesandtheadditionofsignalstoimprovesafetyatotherlocationsinthecorridor,andsolutionset4alsoincludesaTrafficManagementSystem(TMS)fortheentirearea.ThesefoursolutionsetswerepresentedduringthethirdpublicmeetingheldOctober27,2016.
36
SolutionSets1and2Installwestboundleftturnlane
Extendeastboundleftturnlane
Installcommercialdriveway(right‐in,right‐out,limitedlefts)
Closemedian
SolutionSet3Installcontinuousrightturnlaneeastoftheintersection
Installtwo‐wayleftturnlanewestoftheintersection
SolutionSet4Addshareduse‐pathforbicyclistsandpedestrians(eastboundandwestbound)
FigureB7.ExamplesofImprovementsfromtheFourCandidateSolutionSetsattheIntersectionofRussellWoodsDriveandRoute29.
37
Thefoursolutionsetsaredesignedtobecomplementary,notmutuallyexclusive.Itisconceivablethattherewillnotbejustone“solutionset”whichisadopted.Rather,elementsofeachsolutionsetmaybeadoptedintoaproposed“blended”solutionset.Forexample,onemightchoosemedianclosures(fromsolutionset1),speedlimitchanges(fromsolutionset2),atwo‐wayleftturnlane(fromsolutionset3),andsignaloptimizationalongwithashared‐usepath(fromsolutionset4).
StepsTakeninCOR‐6(Iteration1)AdraftmemorandumdevelopedbyAECOMonAugust30,2016introducedbaselineandforecast(year2040)conditionsforthecorridor,intermsofintersectiondelayandcrashrisk.Thememorandumalsooutlinedfourcandidatesolutionsets,whereeachsolutionsetcontainedmultipleactions,suchasgeometricimprovements(e.g.,reducingthenumberofaccesspoints),operationalchanges(e.g.,changingsignaltimingsor,insomecases,thelocationsofthesignalsthemselves),andadministrativechanges(suchashowthetransportationcorridoroverlaydistrictisimplemented).Forexample,oneelementofthethirdsolutionsetwasacontinuoustwo‐wayleft‐turnlaneforthelengthofthecorridor.Forthatelement,thememorandumshowedthatsomedecreaseinfatalandinjurycrashescouldbeexpectedinyear2040;thememorandumexplainedthatthiscouldbequantifiedas155.60equivalentpropertydamageonly(EPDO)crashes,basedonapplicationofcrashmodificationfactorsfromtheFHWACrashModificationFactor(CMF)clearinghouseforatwo‐wayleft‐turnlane.Asanotherexample,oneelementinthefourthsolutionsetwassignaloptimization,whereareductionofthe62.24EPDOcrasheswasestimated.Inadditiontoimpactsonexpectedcrashes,thememorandumquantifiedtheexpecteddelayimpactsofsomeimprovements.Forexample,oneelementofsolutionset1(addingaflashingyellowarrowtotheintersectionofRoute29andCalohanRoadtoprovideapermittedleftturningphaseratherthanaprotectedonlyleftturningphase)wasexpectedtoreduce2040averageintersectiondelayfrom68secondsto41secondsduringthepeakhour.ThismemorandumwasreviewedataninternalteammeetingheldonSeptember2,2016.
TheimpactsoftheelementsofeachsolutionsetintermsofperformancemeasuressimilartothoseidentifiedinCOR‐5weredetermined.RecallthatCOR‐5identifiedthreegoals,abbreviatedhereaspromoteasafetransportsystem,promoteaneffectivetransportationsystem,andpromoteatransportationsystemcompatiblewithexistingandfuturelanduses.Foreachgoal,atleastoneperformancemeasureisgiven(reductioninequivalentpropertydamageonly(EPDOforfatalandinjurycrashesforthefirstgoal,reductioninvehiclehoursofdelayinthecorridorandimprovementinthetraveltimereliabilityindexforthesecondgoal,andreductioninmovementdelayforleftandrightturnsforthethirdgoal).Theimpactofeachelementfromeachofthefourcandidatesolutionsetsonthesemeasureshasbeendetermined.
Forexample,considerthefirstgoal(promoteasafetransportationsystem).Theperformancemeasureistheequivalentpropertydamageonly(EPDO)offatalandinjurycrashesexpectedtobereduced.(EPDOisawayofweightingcrashreductionsbyseveritylevel:theSmartScaleTechnicalGuide[VDOT,2016]indicatesfourweights:540points[forfatalcrashes],30points[forsevereinjurycrashes],10points[formoderateinjurycrashes],and5points[forminorinjurycrashes].Thussupposeahypotheticalimprovementwasbelievedtoreduceallcrashseveritiesby12%,anditwasappliedtoasitewherethenumberofcrashes(withouttreatment)was0fatal,1severeinjury,2moderateinjury,and5minorinjury.TheEPDOforfatalandinjurycrashesexpectedtobereducedforthishypotheticalimprovementwouldbecalculatedas(0fatalcrashes)(540points)(12%)+(1severeinjurycrash)(30points)(12%)+(2moderateinjurycrashes)(10points)(12%)+(5minorinjurycrashes)(5points)(12%)=9.Inpractice,theEPDOinfatalandinjurycrasheswillvaryforeachimprovementtypeandbylocation.Forexample,consideraT‐intersectionwithRoute29.TheexpectedEPDOreductioninfatalandinjurycrashesthatresultsfromeliminatingallleftturns(exceptfromRoute29)isestimatedtobe0.35foroneintersection(Route29andDennisRiddleDrive)but
38
morethantentimesthatamount(4.90)foranotherintersection(Route29andabusinesssouthofBakerRoad),asshowninFigureB8.
FigureB8.ExamplesofEliminatingLeftTurns(ExceptFromRoute29)atT‐intersections.(left:DennisRiddleDrive.right:accessforabusinesssouthofBakerRoad.)
39
Table 18 ‐ Performance Measures Applied to the Candidate Solution Sets
Goal ObjectivePerformanceMeasure
Set1‐ArterialCapacityandThroughput Set2‐CorridorSafety Set3‐EconomicDevelopment
Set4‐ SmartandAlternative
TransportationSolutions
PromoteaSafeTransportation
System
Reducemotorvehiclecrashes
EquivalentProperty
DamageOnly(EPDO)offatalandinjury
crashesexpectedtobereduced
•31‐MedianCrossoverClosures•11‐TurnLaneExtensions•13‐NewTurnLanes•9‐RCUTIntersections
•190(FatalInjury)&72(SeriousInjury)‐SpeedLimitReduction•31‐MedianCrossoverClosures•11‐TurnLaneExtensions•13‐NewTurnLanes•9‐RCUTIntersections
•156‐InstallTWLTLinmedianspacealongRoute29
TrafficManagementSystem•252‐RedLightCamera•132‐SpeedEnforcementCameras•62‐SignalOptimization
PromoteanEfficient
TransportationSystem
ReducedelaySimTrafficdelay
‐2040conditions
•0.80min.decrease‐FlashingYellowArrow(FYA)InstallationatCalohanRd.andRoute29intersection
•4.91min.increase(twodirectionscombined)‐SpeedLimitReductionalongRoute29
N/A N/A
ImproveReliability
TravelTimeReliabilityIndex
•1.00‐MedianCrossoverClosures•0.50‐MedianLeft‐InOnlywithRight‐In/Right‐Out•2.75‐LeftTurnLaneExtensions•0.75‐RightTurnLaneExtensions•0.25‐LeftTurnLaneAddition•0.75‐RightTurnLaneAddition•0.25‐RCUTS•0.25‐InstallFYAatCalohanRd.Signal
•1.00‐MedianCrossoverClosures•0.50‐MedianLeft‐InOnlywithRight‐In/Right‐Out•2.75‐LeftTurnLaneExtensions•0.75‐RightTurnLaneExtensions•0.25‐LeftTurnLaneAddition•0.75‐RightTurnLaneAddition•0.25‐RCUTS•3.00‐ProposedSpeedLimitChanges
•0.25‐FutureSignalLocations:MoormanMillRoadPattersonRoadLynbrookRoadHylandDrive•2.75‐InstallTwo‐wayleft‐turnlanewithinthemedianspacealongRoute29
•1.50–TrafficManagementSystemtoincludered‐lightcamera,speedenforcementcameras,andsignaloptimization/adaptive
Promote a Transportation
System Compatible with Existing and Future Land Use
Improve vehicular access to
points in the corridor for passenger travel
Movement Delay for turning lefts and rights at existing and
proposed solution conditions ‐ 2040
conditions
RCUTs (Movement Delay/Veh. (sec.)) with Existing Corridor Speed Limit RCUTs (Movement Delay/Veh. (sec.)) with Speed Limit Changes along the Corridor
Future Signalized Intersections
N/A
Intersection NBL SBL EBR WBR NBU SBU Intersection NBL SBL EBR WBR NBU SBU
MoormanMillRd
10.5(17.0)*
15.2(10.9)
15.3(34.7)
28.2(16.3)
12.8(86.8)
22.8(11.2)
MoormanMillRd
10.5(17.0)
15.2(10.9)
15.3(34.7)
28.2(16.3)
12.6(103.0)
23.0(14.8)
PattersonRd
10.5(17.0)
27.2(15.1)
15.3(34.7)
N/A10.6(50.7)
46.6(10.5)
PattersonRd10.5(17.0)
27.2(15.1)
15.3(34.70)
N/A10.3(51.2)
33.6(14.5)
ProposedSignalizedIntersection
AMOverallIntersectionDelay/Veh.
(sec)
PMOverallIntersectionDelay/Veh.
(sec)
LynbrookRd
9.9(16.5)
27.0(15.3)
14.0(32.8)
88.5(28.7)
52.8(81.8)
324.4(36.8)
LynbrookRd9.9
(16.5)27
(15.3)14.0(32.8)
88.5(28.7)
10.0(76.8)
160.7(33.9)
HylandDrive
9.9(16.5)
27.0(15.3)
14.0(32.8)
88.5(28.7)
56.8(42.6)
469.2(53.7)
HylandDrive 9.9(16.5)
28(15.3)
14.0(32.8)
88.5(28.7)
13.4(33.8)
385.5(33.9)
MedianCrossover(MovementDelay/Veh.(sec.))withExistingCorridorSpeedLimit
MedianCrossover(MovementDelay/Veh.(sec.))withExistingCorridorSpeedLimit
MoormanMillRd
22.2(LOSC)
29.6(LOSC)
MedianLocationsonRoute29Corridor
NBL SBL EBR WBRMedianLocationsonRoute29
CorridorNBL SBL EBR WBR
PattersonRd
14.4(LOSB)
50.1(LOSB)
NorthernEndofCorridor10.8(25.2)
26.1(15.1)
NorthernEndofCorridor10.8(25.2)
26.1(15.1)
LynbrookRd
29.9(LOSC)
22.8(LOSC)
SouthernEndofCorridor9.9
(15.6)14.0(10.3)
SouthernEndofCorridor9.9
(15.6)14.0(10.3)
HylandDr21.1(LOS
C)18.0(LOSB)
VDOT Planning Level Cost Estimates per Solution Set $11,280,000 $10,420,000 $26,550,000 $11,445,000‐MovementDelayExceeds300seconds *XX(XX)‐AM(PM)PeakHour
FigureB9.PerformanceMeasureImpactsoftheFourCandidateSolutionSets,FinalVersion.(InitiallybasedonTable18ofAECOMTechnicalMemodatedOctober17,2016,however,EPDOforRCUTsandMedianCrossoverClosureswereupdatedfrom5to9andfrom34to31,respectively,asshown.OnFebruary27,thenumberofnewturnlanesprojectswasupdatedfrom11to13asshown,andtotalcostswerechangedfrom$11,155,000;$10,295,000;$26,350,000;and$11,445,000forsolutionsets1,2,3,and4,respectively,tothevaluesshowninFigureB9.
40
Thebenefitsresultingfromsuchindividualimprovements,suchasmedianclosures,extensionsoradditionsofturnlanes,changesinspeedlimits,andsoforth,maythenbeaggregatedforeachofthefoursolutionsets.FigureB9showsthat,forthefoursolutionsets,theexpectedEPDOreductionforfatalandinjurycrashesareasfollows:61(solutionset1‐arterialcapacityandthroughput);251(solutionset2‐corridorsafety);156(solutionset3—economicdevelopment);and446(solutionset4—smartandalternativetransportationsolutions).FigureB9,whichisanexcerptoftheattachedmemorandumfromAECOM,summarizestheseimpactsforeachcandidatesolutionset.Thesehavebeenprovidedtothepublic(clickhereforthewebsiteorgodirectlytohttp://www.virginiadot.org/projects/lynchburg/route_29__corridor.asp).
Planninglevelcostsforeachofthesolutionsetshavebeenidentified.Forexample,thecostofaddingaleftturnlaneateachintersection($225,000)toeightintersectionsinthecorridor(foratotalof$1.8million)isshowninTable19oftheAECOMmemorandum.Thatmemorandumgivesaroughindicationofhowthecostmagnitudevariesbyelement;forinstance,thecostofaddingacontinuoustwo‐wayleft‐turnlanefromsolutionset3($12million)ismorethansixtimesthecostofaddingtheleftturnlaneatalleightintersections($1.8million)insolutionset1.Bycontrast,theproposedrealignmentofRangoonStreet(FigureB10)suchthatRangoonStreetintersectsTerminalDriveratherthanRoute29wouldcostonly$50,000—slightlylessthanaquarterofthecostofaddinganewturnlanetoanexistingintersection.TheproposedrestrictedcrossingU‐turnintersection(RCUT)—whicheliminatesleftturnsfromtheminorapproachesaswellasthroughmovementsfromtheminorapproaches—hasaconsiderablylargercost($1.25millionperintersection).
FigureB10.AnExampleofaLow‐Cost($50,000)Improvement(realigningRangoonStreettointersectTerminalDriveratherthanRoute29).
Projectshavebeenpartiallypreparedforusewithcandidatefundingsources.ThetwochieffundingsourcesforthesecandidatesolutionsetsarebelievedtobetheHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram(HSIP)andtheVirginiaSmartScale.ForaprojecttoreceivefundingunderSmartScale,theprojectmustbescoredbythesubmitteracrossadozencriteria(forprojectsthatareinareasofunder200,000people,suchasLynchburg).Theimpactsforthreeofthosecriteriahavebeencomputed:EPDOoffatalandinjurycrashesexpectedtobeeliminatedbytheproject,EPDOoffatalandinjurycrashesexpectedtobeeliminatedbytheprojectper100millionvehiclemilestraveled,andthetraveltimereliabilityindex(TTRI).Eachcriterionrequiresamixofdataandjudgmenttocompute.Forexample,considerthethirdcriterion(TTRI)andonesolutionfromcandidatesolutionset1:closureofmediancrossovers.TheTTRIiscomputedasshowninTableB3andfoundtobe1.0.
41
TableB3.ExampleofScoringaProject(ClosureofMedianCrossovers)basedonOneSmartScaleCriterion:TTRIaStep Value ExplanationComputebuffertimeindex 0.25 BTIwasestimatedusingINRIXspeeddataanditwasfoundtovary
between0.23and0.25.Thevalueof0.25wasadoptedforthiscorridor.
Determineimpactofincidents
2.0 TheSmartScaleTechnicalGuide (p.77)suggestsanimpactvalueof2forprojects“directlyimprovingincidentfrequency”andmedianclosureisbelievedtofalldirectlyinthiscategory.
Determinefrequencyofincidentsonthenetworkusinghistoricalcrashdata
1.0 TheSmartScaleTechnicalGuide (p.77‐78)suggestsusingEquivalentPropertyDamageOnly(EPDO)valueasasurrogatemeasuretodeterminefrequencyofincidents.TheestimatedEPDOvalueforclosureofmediancrossoverswasbetween25and75,whichcorrespondstoanincidentfrequencyscoreof1.0.
Determineimpactofweatherevents
2.0 TheSmartScaleTechnicalGuide (p.78)suggestsanimpactvalueof2.0forprojectsthat“directlymitigateweathereventsbygeometricimprovements”andmedianclosureisbelievedtofalldirectlyinthiscategory.
Determinefrequencyofweathereventsusinghistoricalweatherdata
1.0 Withlackofhistoricalweatherdataavailable,theteamassumes20‐40hoursofcombinedweathereventsperyear,whichwouldcorrespondtoavalueof1.0(SmartScaleTechnicalGuidep.78).
ComputeTTRI(TravelTimeReliabilityIndex)
1.0 TTRI =BufferTimeIndex*(ImpactofIncidents*Incidentfrequency)+(Impactofweather*Weatherfrequency)=0.25*(2*1+2*1)
aVirginiaDepartmentofTransportation.SmartScaleTechnicalGuide,Richmond,(September9)2016.http://vasmartscale.org/documents/201606/sstechnicalguide_final_9_8_2016.pdf.AccessedOctober12,2016.
StepsTakeninCOR‐6(Iteration2)Duringthereviewofthecandidatesolutionsets,projectteammembersconsideredthreequestionsthatareshownwithinthePlanWorksPolicyQuestionsforCOR‐7(butwhichwerechosenbecausetheyarerelevanttoevaluatingsolutionsetsinCOR‐6):
1. Areanysolutionsetsfatallyflawed?2. Istherangeofsolutionsetsbroadenoughtoaddresscorridorgoals?3. Aretherecertaincombinationsofsolutionsetsthatareessentialtoconsider
AdraftmemorandumprovidedbyAECOMonAugust30servedasabriefingtoolfortheprojectteamonSeptember2,2016.Theteam’sanswerstotheabovequestionsguidedrevisionstothecandidatesolutionsets.
1. Areanysolutionsetsfatallyflawed?
Thesecondcandidatesolutionsetincludedonesolutionwhichwastotightentheordinancegoverningthetransportationcorridoroverlaydistrict.TheTCODcurrentlyrequiresaminimumfrontageforanylotadjacenttoaprimaryhighway(suchasRoute29)of800feet(whichmaybereducedifaccesspointsareshared).Becausetheunderlyingzoningallowsafrontageof75feet,andbecausetheareacontainsnumerousnarrowlots,arecommendedchangewastoexpandtheminimumlotfrontagefrom75feetto200feet.However,acountystaffmembernotedthatinpractice,developerstendednottobuildcommercialinfrastructureonasinglesmalllot;rather,developerstendedtoacquiremultiplelotsandthencombinethem.Becausesuchaproposedchangecouldbeseenasaddingadditionalregulations,andgiventhattheconstituencyinthis
42
locationstronglyprefersnon‐regulatoryapproaches,makingtheTCODseemrestrictive(evenifthoserestrictionswouldnotmateriallyaffectactionstakenbypersonsinthecorridor)couldmakethesolutionsetdifficulttoimplement.
Thecandidatesolutionsetsalsoincludedlocationswheretrafficsignalsmightbeaddedandwherespeedlimitsmightbedecreased.Insomecasesitmightbepossibletojustifythesesolutionsonthebasisofsafety,however,itwasnotedthatingeneral,actionssuchasreducingtravelspeedsandaddingsignalswouldreceiveaveryhighlevelofscrutiny.
Therehavebeensomeminorchangesinthecorridorthateliminatedtheneedforafewofthespecificgeometricimprovementscited.Forexample,theabandonmentofaparticularroad(QuartzRoad)bythestateDOT,theadjacentreconstructionofacommercialentrance(tobecomearight‐in/right‐outentrance),andthechangeinthemedianopeningintheproximityofthisreconstruction(tohavealeft‐turnonly),eliminatedtheneedforoneofthefourrecommendedconversionsofmediancrossoverstomedianleft‐inonlymovementsforcandidatesolutionset1.
2. Istherangeofsolutionsetsbroadenoughtoaddresscorridorgoals?
Thesolutionsetswereindeedbroad—addressingsafety,congestion,economicdevelopment,andmultimodalsolutions.Further,theimpactofthesolutionsetsonsafety,throughestimatesofhow2040crasheswouldbeaffected,waspromising.ThusgiventhegoalestablishedinPlanWorksCOR‐5of“promoteasafetransportsystemthroughoutthecounty”itwaspossibletodeterminehoweachelementineachsolutionsetaffectedthatgoal.Forexample,theimpactofextendingaleftturnlaneatthesouthernconnectionofEnglishTavernRoadandRoute29—oneoftensuchextensionsproposedforcandidatesolutionset1—wasexpectedtoreduce7.35EPDOcrashes.
Followingtheexampleofhowthecrashimpactsofsolutionsetelementswerereported,arevisionwassuggested:providesimilarindicatorsofperformancefortheremainingtwoPlanWorksgoals:“promoteaneffectivetransportsystemthroughoutthecounty”and“promoteatransportationsystemcompatiblewithexistingandfuturelanduses.”Forexample,elementsofcandidatesolutionset4includingprovidingshared‐usepathsandbettersignalcoordination.ThelatterelementcanuseperformancemeasurespresentedinCOR‐5(suchasdelayinthecorridororstoppeddelayforcertainbusinesses)andwhileaperformancemeasureassociatedwiththeformerwasnotimmediatelyapparent,itseemedplausiblethatcandidatemeasuremightbenumberofpersonsservedbyalternativemodes.
3. Aretherecertaincombinationsofsolutionsetsthatareessentialtoconsider?
SeveralpubliccommentshadsuggestedthatabypassaroundRoute29shouldbeconsidered.ThisconcepthadarisenthroughsevenpubliccommentsmadeduringthefirstpublicmeetingheldJanuary28andthenthroughanothersevenpubliccommentsmadeduringthesecondpublicmeetingonJune23rd.Additionally,oneprojectteammemberobservednumerousresponsesonsocialmediaforthisproject,askingwhythestudyhadnotconsideredabypass.Althoughthestudyhadbeenfocusedonlowercostalternativesthatcouldbeimplementedwithinthecorridor(ratherthantheadditionalcostandexpenseofnewrightofwayacquisition),thereclearlywereindividualswhofeltthescopeshouldbeexpanded.Accordingly,inreviewingthecandidatesolutionsets,onemodificationwastoclarifythereasonsforhavingtoexcludeabypassfromthecandidatesolutionsets,withsuchreasonsincludingcost,environmentalimpacts,andfeasibilityofconstruction.
43
Thesolutionsetshadconsideredthe“SmartScale”fundingsource.(WhiletheacronymreferstoSystemfortheManagementandAllocationofResourcesforTransportation,thisisaprioritizationprocessforrankingtransportationprojectssubmittedbylocalgovernments[suchasCampbellCounty]andMPOs[suchastheCentralVirginiaMPO,whichisstaffedbytheRegional2000PlanningDistrictCommissionwhosestaffhavebeenactiveinthisstudy]).However,thereareotherfundingsourcesbesidesSmartScale,suchastheHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram(HSIP)(usedforat‐graderailcrossings,highwaysafety,andbicycleorpedestriansafety);theStateofGoodRepair(SGP)program(usedforpavementsandbridges);theRevenueSharingProgram(whereVDOTandthelocalitiesmaysharethecostsofprojects);andtheTransportationAlternativesProgram(TAP)(whichcanbeusedforfundingpedestrianandbicycletrails.)NotethatTAPnowencompassesprogramswhichhadpreviouslybeenseparate:SafeRoutestoSchool,TransportationEnhancement,andtheRecreationalTrailProgram.
ReviseSolutionSetsBasedonProjectPartnerInput
AECOMrevisedthesolutionsetsbasedonthesecomments.Keychangesincluded(1)theadditionofasummarytableshowinghoweachsolutionsetaffectedperformancemeasures(FigureB9presentedinthisAppendix),(2)computationofthecostsforthesolutionsandhowtheywouldaffectscoringacrossPlanWorks,(3)additionaldiscussionoftheprosandconsofthevarioussolutionpackages,and(4)anexplanationofwhythebypasswasnotpartofthecandidatesolutionsets.Asanexampleofthefirsttwochanges,thediscussionpointsoutthatthecostsofreducingcrasheswithatwo‐wayleft‐turnlane(estimatedcostof$12million)ismorethandoublethecostofprovidingturnlaneextensionsplusnewturnlanes(roughly$5million).Asanexampleofthethirdtypeofchange,thediscussionnotesthatmodificationofthecorridoroverlaydistrictcouldrequireextraeffortonbehalfoflandownerstocoordinateaccesspoints.Finally,thediscussionexplainsthatthebypasshasnotbeenconsideredforthepasttwodecadesbuthasatotalcostofroughly$100million,whereasthetotalfundingavailablefortheentireregion(CampbellCountywhichisthefocusofthestudyplustheadjacentjurisdictionsofLynchburg,Amherst,andBedford)is$137million.
NoticethatbecauseitisarequiredperformancemeasureforSmartScale,TTRI,ratherthancrashriskreduction,wasusedtoassessreliability.
COR‐7:AdoptPreferredSolutionSetOutcomeofCOR‐7Table3inthebodyofthereport(andasdetailedinTableB4inthisAppendix)summarizestheblendedsolutionsetforthecorridorimprovements.Atotalof$19.43millioninimprovementshavebeenidentified,andpendingtheresultofapresentationbytheCampbellCountyDirectorofEconomicDevelopmenttotheCountyBoardofSupervisors,theelementsoftheblendedsolutionsetwillbepursuedthroughthreedistinctfundingsources:Virginia’sSmartScale,thedevelopmentoftheMPOConstrainedLongRangePlan,andtheHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram.Approximatelyaquarterofthesefunds(26%)wouldbeusedtoimprovelocalvehicularaccesswithinthecorridor—thatis,waysfordriverstoenterandexitlocalbusinesses,suchasthroughtheadditionofturnlanes.Almosthalfthemonies—about46%‐‐wouldsupportlocalpedestrianandbicycleaccessalongthecorridor.About28%oftheinvestmentswouldsupportthroughmobility(e.g.,closingmedianopenings).Notethatnearlyalloftheimprovementsaddresssafety,especiallytheaccessmodificationswhichreducethenumberofconflictpoints.AsdiscussedCOR‐9andasinitiatedinCOR‐6,partoftheplanningefforthasbeentopreparetheseprojectsforsubmissiontothesefundingsources.
44
TableB4.ResultsofCOR‐7:PreferredSolutionSet(Knownasthe“Blended”SolutionSetwhenPresented)
SolutionElement Numberofsites Cost ImpactAreaClosureofMedianCrossoversLowCost 2 $20,000 MobilityaClosure/ModificationofMedianCrossoversHighCost 10 $250,000 MobilityaLengthenLeftTurnLaneStorage&Taper 13 $1,300,000 LocalaccessbInstallLeftTurnLane 8 $1,800,000 LocalaccessbLengthenRightTurnLaneStorage&Taper 5 $500,000 LocalaccessbInstallRightTurnLane 6 $1,350,000 LocalaccessbVariousSignalImprovements(CalohanRoad) 1 $10,000 LocalaccessbAccessModification‐AntseyRoad 1 $25,000 MobilityaAccessModification‐RealignmentofLynbrookRoad 1 $775,000 MobilityaAccessModification‐RealignmentofLawyersRoad 1 $650,000 MobilityaAccessModification‐RealignmentofRangoonStreet 1 $50,000 MobilityaInstallRCUTMedianAccessPoints 3 $3,750,000 MobilityaSidewalks‐CalohantoRt.460 1 $2,750,000 LocalaccessbSharedUsePath‐CalohantoRt.460 1 $6,200,000 LocalaccessbSpeedLimitReduction 2 MinorCosts LocalaccessbTotalcost $19,430,000StepsTakeninCOR‐7
COR‐7waslargelycompletedinitsinitialformatthethirdpublicmeetingheldOctober27butwasalsorevisedaspartofCOR‐8andCOR‐9.Basedontheresultsofthestakeholderassessment,attendeeswereprovidedwithhandoutsregardingtheoverallprocess,wheretheemphasisofthispublicmeetingwasgearedtowardidentifyingimplementablesolutions.Twomajordeliverableswereconsidered—first,thefourcandidatesolutionsetsintheareasofsafety,capacity,economicdevelopment,and“SMART”strategies(smartandalternativetransportationsolutions),andsecond,publicreactiontotheblendedsolutionsetwassought.Commentscamefromtwosources—aroundtablediscussionandcommentsplacedonthemaps.CommentsBasedonRoundtableDiscussionsAttendeeswerepresentedwiththefoursolutionsetsasdiscussedintheearlierreporttoFHWAregardingTasks6and7.Foreachofthesesolutionsetsattendeeswereaskedthreequestions.(ThesequestionswerechosenbasedonthepolicyquestionsshowninCOR‐7,COR‐8,andCOR‐9).Withonememberfromeachteamateachtable,itwaspossibletodirectlyanswerquestionsposedbystakeholders.
Isitclearwhatthesolutionsmean?Ifnot,whatquestionsdoyouhave? Isitclearhowdifferentsolutionsrelatetotheoutcomesofthrough‐travel,safety,economic
developmentand“SMART”transportation? Arethereanysurprisesorinsightsaboutthesolutions?
Attendeeswerethenpresentedwithablendedsolutionset(seeFigureB11),wheretheblendedsolutionsetwasahybridofcandidatesolutions.
45
FigureB11.Route29BlendedSolutionMatrix
Attendees’answerstothefollowingquestionswererecorded:
Doyouthinksomepeoplemightobjecttoaparticularsolution?Whatobjectionsdoyouthinktheymighthave?
Whatcouldbedonetoimproveorenhancethesolutionpackage? Arethereanysolutionsthatyoupersonallywouldbewillingtoactivelysupportandhelpimplement?
46
Theintentionwasthateachquestionwouldbeansweredseparately,however,generallythecommentsreceivedcouldbecategorizedaseithersupportingachange,beingconcernedaboutachange,orraisingasuggestion(oradditionalcomment).Forexample,considertheeightcommentsthatwerereceivedconcerningchangingthespeedlimits.Ofthoseeightcomments,threeclearlysupportedloweringspeedlimits,fourwereconcernedwithloweringspeedlimits,andonecontainedasuggestionabouthowspeedsshouldbemanaged.(TableB5alsoshowsthatthereissomeuncertaintywhencategorizingthesecomments;forexample,comment5mightbecategorizedasbothconcernaboutspeedlimitsaswellasprovidingasuggestion.Similarly,comment7couldbecategorizedasaconcern[giventheliteraluseoftheword“concern”]orasuggestion[minimizespeedlimitchanges,astheprofessionalfacilitatorwhowasatthattableexplainedthatthecommentwassupportforloweringthespeedlimitonastretchofroadtomatchthe“bookends”oflowerspeedlimitsateitherendofthatstretchofroad..)TableB5alsoshowsthattherecanbeareasofdisagreement,asshownbetweencomments2and4regardingthe35mphspeedlimit.TableB5.ExampleofCommentsReceivedattheThirdPublicMeetingPertainingtoSpeedLimits(BasedontheDiscussionattheTables)
No. Comment HowCategorized
1 Yestoa45mphspeedlimitnorthofCalohan Support2 OKwith45mphstep‐downto35mphbetweenEnglishTavernandendofsubsection3(north
end)Support
3 ForEnglishTavernsouth,thereiscompositionoflanduses‐ slowerspeedlimitsmakesensethere.
Support
4 35mphspeedlimitistotallyunacceptable. Concern5 45mphfromEnglishTavernRoadtoendofsubsection6(atsouthend),istoolow.Moveto55
mphafterEnglishTavernRoad,butmaintainexistingshort45mphzoneleadinguptoCalohanRoadintersection.
Concern
6 Don'twanttoreducespeedlimits. Concern7 Thereareconcernsaboutraisingandloweringspeedlimitsonthecorridorandcreatingspeed
traps.Itisbettertohaveamoreconsistentspeedlimitthroughoutthecorridor.Concern
8 Ifanyspeedlimitsarereduced,stateshouldbecommittedtohiringatleastone newtroopertopatrolitregularly.
Suggestion
TableB6summarizesthe47commentsreceivedbasedonthediscussionsatthetablesasrecordedbyteammembers.Thefirstcolumnshowsthegeneralarea,suchasbuildingabypass,modifyingcrossoversorturnlanes,oraddingsidewalks.Thenexttwocolumnsshowexamplesofcommentsthat,intheteam’sopinion,exemplifiedeithersupportforimprovementsorconcernabouttheimprovements.Therightcolumnshowsexamplesofcommentsthatrelatedtoasuggestionorwhichposedaquestion.Thetotalnumberofcommentsineachcategoryisshowninparentheses.Forexample,forcrossoversandturnlanes,onecommentisshowninTableB6.Theotherthreecommentsthatwerecategorizedassupportinginthisregard(butwhicharenotgiveninTableB6)were“TheremaybetoomanycrossoversnorthofLawyersRoad,”“Noobjectiontoproposedmediancrossoverclosure,”and“Supportforclosureofsomemedians,providingrightturnonly.”
47
TableB6.SummaryofPublicCommentsfromtheThirdPublicMeeting(BasedonDiscussionsattheTables)
Area(totalcomments)
Exampleofasupportingcomment(totalcomments)
Exampleofaconcerncomment(totalcomments)
Exampleofacommentrelatedtoasuggestionoraquestion
Bypass(3) BypassfortheprojectareaandCharlottesvillewouldbringeconomicopportunityformNorthCarolina.(1)
Whileabypassincreasesflow,itmayadverselyaffectbusiness.(1)
Needtoaddresscostlylong‐rangeprojectsinaproductiveway,thatcapturespreferencebutallowsconversationforothersmaller‐scalepreferences.(1)
Crossoversandturnlanes(14)
Closureofcrossovers,andgoingsouthtogonorthon29,makessense.Itistooriskytocutacrosstwolanesoftraffictodirectlyaccessthecurrentcrossover,andmakealeftonto29north(4).
Closing medians will reduce access to businesses (2)
Consideru‐turns,whichareeasierthantryingtocrosstraffic.
ClosethesoutherncrossoverfromEnglishTavernRoad.(8)
Extralaneorcongestionreduction(5)
SupportseffortstoreducecongestionatLawyersRoadfromwestsideofroad.(1)
None Addathirdlaneinthemostcongestedarea(Route460toEnglishTavern).(4)
RestrictedCrossingU‐Turns(RCUTs)(4)
None TheRCUTistoodangerouswiththespeed.DoRCUTscausepeopletospeeduporslowdown?(1)
ConsiderSuperstreetsatRCUTS Theconceptofthematrixwastoo
general,andthenrealizedthatthemapsprovidegreaterdetail.(3)
Sidewalks(3) Sidewalksmakesensethroughsubsections1and2,uptoLawyersRoad.Pedestrianareaswithinareaofairportmakesense.(1)
Donotsupporthighpricetagforsidewalksandmulti‐usepathsoutsideofsubsections1and2.(1)
Considerdeletingthesidewalkand/orthemulti‐usepath.Wouldbeunder‐utilizedunlessLibertyUniversityexpandssouth.BikeriderswillgototheParkway,etc.forasaferride(veryfew18‐wheeltrucks)andabetterview.(1)
SpeedLimits(8)
ForEnglishTavernsouth,thereiscompositionoflanduses‐slowerspeedlimitsmakesensethere.(3)
35mphspeedlimitistotallyunacceptable.(4)
Ifanyspeedlimitsarereduced,stateshouldbecommittedtohiringatleastonenewtroopertopatrolitregularly.(1)
Trafficsignals(4)
WouldliketoseeTrafficManagementSystemimplemented(fortrucksandout‐of‐areathroughtraffic.(1)
Morestoplightsandloweringspeedlimitwillnothelptrafficflow.(1)
Improvetimingoflights,sothattrafficdoesnothitmultipleredlights.(2)
Other(6) Mostinterestsinimprovingarterialcapacityandthroughput(speedandmobility).(1)
Thepresentationshouldhavespentabitmoretimeonexplainingthetradeoffsassociatedwithdifferentsolutions.(1)
Therearedifferentinterestsassociatedwithdifferentusers:Thosewholivewithintheprojectarea,andthoseusingasathroughroad.(4)
CommentsBasedonMapsoftheBlendedSolutionSet
Notethatthereweretwopotentiallyoverlappingsourcesofcommentsfromthethirdpublicmeeting.TheaforementionedcommentsreportedinTablesB5andB6werebasedonaspreadsheetof47comments
48
recordedonworksheetsbyoneteammemberwhosatateachtable(orcommentsmayhavebeenturnedinbyparticipants.)Thesecommentsarenotnecessarilytiedtoaspecificgeographiclocation.Another56commentswerewrittenbyattendeesonthemapoftheblendedsolutionset,andthesecommentsaretiedtoaspecificgeographiclocationandareavailableonthepublicwebsite(e.g.,http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/lynchburg/route_29__corridor.asp).Thereispotentialoverlapbetweenthesecommentsasitispossibleforanindividualtohavebothsaidacommentaloud(suchthatitwasrecordedinTableB6)andthenwrittenarelatedcommentonthemapoftheblendedsolutions(suchthatitisshownonthesectionofwebsitetitled“Route29AssessmentPublicMeeting3Comments.”
The56map‐basedcommentsshowsomedifferentareasofemphasisthanthoseshowninTableB6;forexample,therearethreecommentsthatindicateaparticularlocationisa“priority”andothercommentsareverylocation‐specific(e.g.,anoise‐relatedcommentisthat“Truckshavetobreakhardinthisarea.Loudandwindowsshake.”)Thatsaid,themap‐basedcommentsgenerallyshowareasofsupport,suggestions,andconcernforvarioustypesofimprovements,asisthecaseinTableB5.Forexample:
JustastherewereeightcommentsregardingspeedlimitsinTableB5(withsomeinfavorofmakingchangesandsomeopposed),therewerealsocommentsregardingspeedlimitsshownonthemapoftheblendedsolutionset.Atotalofsevensuchcommentswerereceived,withfourindicatingnottoreducespeedlimits(e.g.,“Donotcutspeedlimitsinthiscorridor”)andthreesupportingachangeinspeedlimits(e.g.,“CansupportlowerspeedlimitfromFNBDrnorthwardifwarranted.”)
ThereweretwocommentsshownonthemapthatrelatedtoRCUTs,withoneinsupport(“R‐cutsareagoodidea”)andonethatcouldbecategorizedassupportorconcern(“Don'tthinkR‐cutdesignwillworkatLynbrook.”)Thesevenaccess‐relatedcommentsalsoshowedareasofsupportformedianclosures(e.g.,“Isupportmedianclosuresalongthecorridor”andconcern(e.g.,“Businessowneratadjacentparcelhasanissuewithclosingthiscrossover.”)
Themap‐basedcommentsdoshowsomeareasofdisagreement,however:ofthesixcommentsthatarecategorizedasbicycle/pedestrian,twoareasuggestion“SidewalkshouldbeonnorthboundsidesouthofLawyersRdb/cmostattractionsonNBside”andfourareopposed(e.g.,“Can'tsupportsidewalks/sharedusepathinthisarea.Notenoughbenefitandhighcost.”)
ChangesintheBlendedSolutionSetBasedonComments
Thepubliccommentsalsoledtotwodemonstrablechangesintheblendedsolutionset:
Inresponsetotheseconcernsaboutthespeedlimit,theblendedsolutionsetwastoreducethespeedlimitto55MPHinthesouthernportionofthecorridor(southofCalohanRoad)andto45MPHinthenorthernportionofthecorridor(northofCalohanRoad).(Priortoimplementation,VDOTwillhavetoconductasafetyanalysisandaspeedstudy.)
Basedonthecomments,aswellasconsiderationofthecrashhistory,thesouthernEnglishTavernRoadintersectionshouldprovideonlyprovideright‐in/right‐outaccess.ThisimprovementmustbeinstalledincombinationwiththeLynbrookRoadextension(toEnglishTavernRoad)inordertoreplacethemovementsthatbecomerestricted.
49
COR‐8:ApproveEvaluationCriteria,MethodsandMeasuresforPrioritizationofProjects
OutcomesofCOR‐8
TherearetwosetsofoutcomesassociatedwithCOR‐8:themethodsforprioritizationandtheresultsofpublicopinion.
Regardingthefirstoutcome,allsourceswillbepursuedsimultaneously:HSIP,SmartScale,andtheMPO’sprioritizationprocess.
Regardingthesecondoutcome—anunderstandingofthepublic’sviewpointregardingtheseimprovements—thecommentsreceivedinthefinalpublicmeetingshow(seeCOR‐7)areasofbothsupportandconcernforthediversetypesofimprovementsproposed,withaboutaquarterofthecommentsshowingsupportforeachtypeofimprovement,aboutaquarterofthecommentsshowingaconcernabouttheimprovement,andabouthalfthecommentscontainingasuggestion,afollow‐upquestion,orsomeothertypeofstatement.Forexample,ofthe14commentsthatpertainedtoaccessmanagementimprovements(e.g.,closureofmediancrossoversortheadditionofturnlanes),fourgenerallysupportedtheconcept(e.g.,“TheremaybetoomanycrossoversnorthofLawyersRoad”),tworaisedaconcern(e.g.,“Closingmedianswillreduceaccesstobusinesses”),andeightwerecategorizedasOtherbecausetheycontainedasuggestionorquestionsuchas“FavorsnoleftturnsatLynbrookandMoormanMill;however,othersmayobjecttothisidea”[thiswasasinglequotefromoneperson]and“ClosethesoutherncrossoverfromEnglishTavernRoad.”(Theselasttwocommentscategorizedas“Other”showalsothatthereisnotalwaysafirmdelineationbetweensupportandasuggestion,asonecouldarguethattheyaregenerallysupportiveofaccessmanagement.)Thecommentstosomedegreereflectthediversenatureofthecorridorinthatitsupportsbothamobilityandalocalaccessfunction.Aspointedoutbyonerespondentatthisthirdpublicmeeting,“Therearedifferentinterestsassociatedwithdifferentusers:Thosewholivewithintheprojectarea,andthoseusingasathroughroad.”Thismatchesastatementmadebythecountyplannerattheoutsetofthestudy:noteveryonewillgeteverythingtheywantfromthisprocess,butwewantallvoicestobeheard.
StepsTakeninCOR‐8
AmeetingoftheprojectteamwasheldinLynchburgNovember14,2016wherefourquestions,eachfromCOR‐8andCOR‐9,appearedparticularlyrelevantfordetermininghowtoevaluateprojects(COR‐8)andthenhowtoprioritizecorridorimprovements(COR‐9).Generally,aswasnotedinearliermodules,itwasappropriatetoperformcertainmodulesintandem;theresultsarepresentedseparatelyhereinordertobeconsistentwiththeflowofPlanWorksmodules.Inthisparticularcase,theanswerstothequestionsfromCOR‐8andCOR‐9weredevelopedsimultaneously,andinfactoneofthequestionsfromCOR‐9(pertainingtomatchinggoalsandprioritization)waspursuedaspartofCOR‐8.Notealsothatquestionswhereshortenedinafewcasestofacilitateanin‐persondiscussion. Whatfactorsinfluenceprioritization?
Therearetwowaystoanswerthisquestion.Intermsofhowcapitalimprovementsareprioritizedwithintheformalplanningprocess,thisprocessfollowsthedevelopmentoftheMPO’sConstrainedLongRangePlan(CLRP)wherethreefactors—accessibility(20%),safety(25%),andeconomicdevelopment(25%)—playadominantroleinprioritizingprojectswithintheCLRP.However,amoreappropriateansweristhatthereareatleastthreedifferentfundingsourcesforcorridorprojects:Virginia’sSmartScale,the
50
developmentofprojectsbasedontheaforementionedMPO’sCLRP,andtheHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram(HSIP).ForHSIP,projectsareprioritizedbasedonbenefitcost,wheretheexpectedcrashesreducedaredividedbythecostoftheimprovement.
Howdoesthisprioritizationprocessreflectstakeholders’input?
Therearetwodistinctmechanisms.First,thecorridorprocessusedforPlanWorks(e.g.,thethreepublicmeetingsheldinJanuary,June,andOctober[2016]plustheearliermeetingwithselectBOSmembers[December2015]aswellasanycommentssubmittedthroughotherchannels)willgenerateprojectsofinterest.Forexample,theinterestinmultimodaltravelisevidentinthefactthatoftheslightlylessthanathirdofthe$19.43millionintotalimprovements(seeTable1)isattributedtothesharedbicycle/pedestrianusepath.Second,theMPOCLRPprocessitselfistheproductofpublicinvolvement.
Isthereaclearconnectionbetweentheprioritizationprocessandthecorridorgoals?
RecallthattheCampbellCountyComprehensivePlanidentifiedthreecorridorgoals:(1)promoteasafetransportsystemthroughoutthecounty;(2)promoteaneffectivetransportsystemthroughoutthecounty;and(3)promoteatransportationsystemcompatiblewithexistingandfuturelanduses.Wecanviewgoal(2)asrelatingtothestatewidemobilitypurposeofthecorridor,andgoal(3)asrelatingtothelocalaccessfunctionofthecorridor:goal(1)—safety—influencesbothmobilityandaccess.Table1showsthatsomeimprovements(8rows)reflectimprovedlocalaccess,andotherimprovements(7rows)reflectimprovedthroughmobility.Overall,atotalof$4.96millionisfocusedonsuchlocalaccessimprovements(forvehicles),$5.52millionisfocusedonthroughmobilityimprovements(forvehicles),andapproximately$8.95millionisfocusedonlocalaccessimprovementsforbicyclistsandpedestrians.
Aremorespecificevaluationcriterianeededtoprioritizeinvestments?
Generallytheanswerisno—giventhethreepublicmeetings,thedecisionprocessusedtoprioritizetheseprojectsrestswiththeCountyBoardofSupervisors.Thatsaid,thereisoneadditionalelementthatcouldbecomenecessaryonacase‐by‐casebasis:whennewbusinessesarebeingdeveloped,theymayrequireinformationregardingsiteplanreview.Thus,ifthereisaparticularproject(sayanintersectionimprovementandasiteplanadjacenttothatintersection),thenpossiblyadditionalconstructiondetails(suchastheexactlengthoftheturnlaneandhowthatwillinfluenceaccesstothebusiness)couldbeneeded.Thatsaid,thismorespecificevaluationcriteriawouldbecomepartofthelanddevelopmentreviewprocessastheneedarises.
COR‐9:Adoptprioritiesforimplementation
OutcomeofCOR‐9
TheCampbellCountyDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentwillbriefthecountyBOSregardingtheblendedsolutionset.ThereactionoftheBOSwillbeusedtoconfirmormodifytheblendedsolutionsetelements,andhelpdeterminetheoverallstrategyforpursuingfundingsources.AppendixCshowsthelocationsoftheseprojects(thedrawinghasbeenupdatedtoaddresschangesmadesinceOctober2016,whenaninitialversionofCOR‐7wasdeveloped).Adatabasethatcontainssome,butnotall,oftheinformationneededtosubmitprojectsforfundinghasbeenpreparedbyAECOMasofFebruary8,2017.ThatdatabaseshowshowprojectscanbepreparedforfundingthroughMPOprioritizationprocess,SmartScale,andtheHighwaySafety
51
ImprovementProgram.Whilethedatabasewillnotprovideallnecessarydataforthesethreeprocesses,itshouldprovideausefulstartingpoint.Thedatabasehasfourworksheets:(1)atableofeachimprovementandthesupportinginputdatainformation,(2)thecrashrecordsarrangedbycorridorintersection,(3)therelevantdataitemsforinputintotheMPOprocess,and(4)therelevantdataitemsforinputintoSmartScale(whichcanalsoprovidetheinputintoHSIP).Forexample,consideroneofthemedianclosures(fromAnsteyRoadtoRoute29andconversionofAnsteyRoadtoacul‐de‐sac.Thedatabaseshowsthefollowing:(1)thecostis$25,000persite;(2)theEPDOforfatalandinjurycrashes(whichisS.1underSmartScale)is80.63;(3)theEPDOrate(S.2underSmartScale)is94.97;(3)thetraveltimereliabilityindex(ED.3underSmartScale)is1.5;(4)additionaldataelementsareneededtopreparetheprojectsforSmartScale:A1‐A3,E1‐E3,ED1‐ED2,andL1,and(5)thecrashhistoryisavailableatthislocation. StepstakentoarriveattheoutcomesofCOR‐9
InNovember2016,theteamconsideredfourquestionsassociatedwithCOR‐9: Whatisthepriorityorderforimprovementstothecorridor?
TheMPOplanningmatrixwillprovideastartingpoint.However,someprojectswillriseinpriorityprimarilybecausetheassociatedfundingsourceiseasiertoobtain!Forexample,becauseHSIPhasafastertimelinethantheCLRPprocess,aprojectthatcanbefundedthroughHSIPwillbesteeredinthatdirection.Tobeclear,anyprojectsfromthelistinTable1thatareviewednegativelybytheBOSwillberemoved,buteasier‐to‐fund‐or‐buildprojectswillbepursuedfirstandtheremainingprojectswillbechosenbasedontheMPOPolicyBoard’svoting.
Whatarethenextstepsforeachidentifiedimprovement?Allprojectswillbepursuedsimultaneously,recognizingthatsomeprojectshavelongertimelines.
Howwillyouletstakeholdersknowtheresults?TheresultsofthepublicinvolvementprocesshavebeenpostedontheprojectwebsitetitledRoute29CorridorAssessment,CampbellCounty,whichisaccessibleatthisURL:http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/lynchburg/route_29__corridor.asp.Inaddition,thisinformationwillbesharedbytheBoardofSupervisorsandtheCampbellCountyPlanningCommissionasappropriate,throughstepssuchasputtingprojectsintotheprioritizationmatrixandthroughthestatewideSmartScaleprocess.
HowwilltheCampbellCountyComprehensivePlanbeupdatedbasedonthisstudy?
In2019therewillbeanupdatetothetransportationchapterbasedontheseimprovements.Atthispoint,itbelievedthattheoverlaydistrictwillnotchangebutwillberetained.Inaddition,theresultsoftwoactionswillbeincludedinthatchapter,anditisexpectedthatbothactionswilloccurbyJune2017.First,theCampbellCountyDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentwillbriefthecountyBOSregardingtheblendedsolutionset.Second,thereactionoftheBOSwillbeusedtoconfirmormodifytheblendedsolutionsetelements,andhelpdeterminetheoverallstrategyforpursuingfundingsources.
52
AppendixC.LocationofProjectsinTable1
Table1listsseveralsiteswhereimprovementsarebeingmade,suchastheadditionofleftturnlanes.FiguresC1‐C6showsthelocationoftheseimprovementsthroughoutthe6.6milecorridor.
FiguresC1andC2showthekeyforunderstandingthetypesofimprovementsmadeandthedivisionofthecorridorineightsections.FiguresC3,C4,C5,andC6showtheimprovementsineachoftheeightsections.
54
FigureC2.OverviewofEightCorridorSections.(Section1isthenorthernmostsection;Section8isthesouthernmostsection.)