QUALITY PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Community Indicator

Open Space Acreage Per 1,000 Population

Percent of Residential Waste Stream Recycled

Percent of Street System Meeting Minimum Physical Condition Rating

Percent of Roads in the Two Lowest Grades for Transportation Efficiency

Citizen Satisfaction with the City’s Appearance

Citizen Satisfaction with the Flow of Traffic in Virginia Beach

Mean Travel Time to Work

Percent Who Commute to Work Using Public Transportation

City of Virginia Beach

Community Indicators Updated September 2011

Open Space Acreage Per 1,000 Population

Neighborhood Park (181 Sites) - A municipal outdoor recreational facility that

provides a basic level of outdoor recreational amenities. Limited non-organized

sport group activities are encouraged. Neighborhood Parks service various age

groups with emphasis on the youth. In some cases, limited parking is provided in

existing neighborhood parks. A neighborhood park is built and designed typically

for a one to two hour experience and should be customized and designed for the

demographic groups who use the park.

General Open Space (58 Sites) - A municipal preservation area whose primary

purpose is to preserve the indigenous vegetation and wildlife in order to serve as

green infrastructure and as a scenic environment for Virginia Beach residents to

enjoy. The difference between General Open Space (GOS) sites and Natural Re-

source Areas is that GOS sites are generally smaller in size and interspersed

throughout the City in order to provide a natural setting and visual relief from the built environment. GOS sites in-

clude dedicated watersheds or natural/non-developed areas. Recreational use might include passive recreation

activities such as hiking, birding, and environmental education, but may also include public waterway access im-

provements, public fishing opportunities, and trail connections.

Community Park (13 Sites) - A municipal outdoor recreational facility that provides a mid-range level of outdoor rec-

reational amenities that may include amenities found at neighborhood parks and at metro parks. A Community

Park would service various ages, with emphasis on organized sport group activities and potential protection of

natural areas. Community parks are built and designed typically for a two to

three hour experience.

Metro Park (5 Sites) - A municipal outdoor recreational facility that provides

a high level of outdoor recreational amenities that may include those

amenities found at community parks, but may also include multiple game-

quality athletic fields, skate parks, and/or disc golf courses. A Metro Park

serves various ages, with emphasis on organized sport group activities and

potential protection of natural areas. Metro Parks are built and designed

typically for a three to four hour experience. Metro Parks may be capable of

hosting special events.

Open space acreage has grown 6.8 acres per 1,000 residents over the past

ten years. This is attributable to City Council’s targeted effort to purchase stra-

tegic properties throughout the City .

Description

This indicator measure the

acreage of municipally

owned open space per

1,000 residents. City open

space is defined as all City

owned or leased neighbor-

hood, community, metro,

special use and signature

parks; general open space

sites, linkages, natural re-

source areas; one half of

all elementary sites (also

known as school parks),

and public beach acreage.

A more detailed description

of each of these types of

open space is shown.

9.32

13.52

14.14

16.12

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Acr

es

Fiscal Year

Municipal Open Space Acreage in Virginia Beach Per 1,000 Population

Signature Park (2 Sites) - A municipal outdoor recreational facil-

ity that is unique to the Virginia Beach Municipal Parks and Rec-

reation System. These parks should service a variety of ages

and emphasize family and organized group activities. Many

times Signature Parks will have a special use facility or single

purpose recreational activity, such as a fairground, outdoor thea-

ter, or festival area. These parks are typically designed for a full-

day experience and are capable of hosting large scale special

events with supporting amenities.

Linkage (2 Sites) - Linkages are built connections or natural cor-

ridors that link community destinations together such as trails,

greenways and linear parks. Typically, the linkage is developed for one or more modes of recreational travel such

as walking, jogging, biking, in-line skating, hiking, and horseback riding.

Natural Resource Area (4 Sites) - A municipal preservation area whose primary purpose is to preserve the indige-

nous vegetation and wildlife in order to serve as green infrastructure and as a scenic environment for Virginia

Beach residents to enjoy. Natural Resource Areas include areas for protection and management of the natural/

cultural environment with recreation use as a secondary objective. Recreational use might include passive recrea-

tion activities such as hiking, birding, and environmental education, but may also include public waterway access

improvements, public fishing opportunities, and trail connections.

Special Use (16 Sites) - A municipal recreational facility that serves a specific recreational purpose. Special use

sites include athletic complexes, resort area parks, and water access sites. Each type of site may have specialized

design and facility service standards, which are addressed more specifically in the Department of Parks and Rec-

reation Strategic Plan. However, the buildings and fixtures should incorporate the standards and recommenda-

tions of the Design Standards Manual.

Significance of the Indicator

Some studies have shown that open space often increases the value of nearby properties and that some devel-

oped uses of property generate a negative fiscal impact to an area.

The preservation of open space provides a variety of recreational opportunities and offers relief to residents living

in the more urban areas of the City. Protecting land also helps meet worthwhile goals for water quality, wildlife

habitat, recreation and overall quality of life.

Source

This data is provided by the Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation De-

partment and is updated annually.

Percent of Residential Waste

Stream Recycled

Significance of the Indicator

A recycling rate of at least 25% is mandated by DEQ. Recycling rate has been

used as a measure of a communities overall commitment to the environment. Recycling preserves natural resources,

reduces overall energy demands, and increases the lifespan of local landfills. With a finite amount of space at the

City’s landfill and the continuing struggles of the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA), the amount of solid

waste being produced within the City of Virginia Beach is a significant concern. Any solid waste that can be recycled

does not need to be landfilled and increases the lifespan of local landfills.

There are monetary implications as

well. Waste disposal costs have in-

creased due to energy costs and fed-

eral legislation regarding waste trans-

portation. Existing landfills do not

have unlimited capacity, and new

facilities are often hard to establish

due to the limited availability of land

and the public relations issues asso-

ciated with potential landfill sites.

The cost savings from recycling, how-

ever, do not fully offset the expendi-

tures to operate the program.

Source

This data is tracked and provided by the Virginia Beach

Public Works Department.

The percent of the residential waste stream being recycled was

relatively consistent until 2008. In 2008, the Southeastern Pub-

lic Service Authority (SPSA) yard waste recycling facility was

closed causing the percent of the residential waste stream to

decline significantly. In 2009 and 2010, the percentage of the

waste stream recycled remained flat.

In August 2010, yard waste recycling was resumed, which will likely result

in a recycling rate similar to 2002 – 2008 rates. Additionally, marketing

and community outreach for recycling has been increased, which will

also result in further increased recycle.

Description

This indicator measures

the percentage of the resi-

dential waste stream that

is recycled and therefore

not being sent to the land-

fill.

27.0%

31.0%32.0%

17.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fiscal Year

Percent of Residential Waste Stream Recycled

Percent of Street System Meeting

the Minimum Physical Condition

(A) Excellent - No distress of any type is evident - New pavement surface. (B) Very Good - No distress of any type is

evident - Older pavement surface with slight open texture or weathered appearance with hairline cracking, minimal

pothole patches (less than 50 square yards per lane mile) all in good condition. (C) Good - Little to no measurable

distress is observed. Pavement surface may exhibit moderately weathered or open texture appearance. Cracks are

visible and/or pothole patches (51 to 100 square yards per lane mile) all in good condition. (D) Fair - Pavement

surface shows severely weathered characteristics and/or slight to moderate distress. Pothole patches (101 to 400

square yards per lane mile) in fair condition, depressions up to 1" deep, and non load-related cracking (longitudinal

or transverse) may be evident. (E) Poor - Pavement surface shows moderate to severe levels of distress including

load related depressions and slippage cracks. Alligator cracks and numerous pothole patches (401 to 600 square

yards per lane mile) in fair to poor condition. (F) Very Poor - Imminent pavement failure or pavement is severely dis-

tressed with large quantities of distortion, rutting, cracks, (alligator, longitudinal, and transverse), and numerous

pothole patching (more than 601 square yards per lane mile) in fair to poor condition.

Significance of the Indicator

Road conditions are one of the largest and most conspicuous responsibilities

of the City. As road conditions deteriorate they become less safe and more

expensive to repair.

Source

This data is provided by the Virginia Beach Public Works Department and is

updated annually. The department did not begin tracking this indicator until

fiscal year 2005-06.

After decreasing for two consecutive years due to the lack of state funding

for many road projects, the proportion of the street system meeting the mini-

mum physical condition rating has increased for two consecutive years. This

is a relatively new indicator that the City began measuring in 2006. Addi-

tional data will help to determine how this indicator is trending.

Description

The minimum physical con-

dition rating scale ranges

from grade “A” to grade

“F”. The full scale and a

description of each grade

are shown below. This indi-

cator measures the percent

of roads that have a condi-

tion grade of “C” or better.

79.0%

74.0%

73.0%

74.5%76.0%

70.0%

74.0%

78.0%

82.0%

86.0%

90.0%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fiscal Year

Percent of Street System Meeting Minimum Physical Condition Rating

Percent of Roads in the Two Lowest

Grades for Transportation Efficiency

(A) Low volumes; primarily free-flow operations. Density is low, and vehicles can

freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers can maintain their desired speeds

with little or no delay. (B) Stable flow with potential for some restriction of operating

speeds due to traffic conditions. Maneuvering is only slightly restricted. The stopped

delays are not bothersome, and drives are not subject to appreciable tension. (C) Stable operations; however, the

ability to maneuver is more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating speeds pre-

vail, but adverse signal coordination or longer queues cause delays. (D) Approaching unstable traffic flow, where

small increases in volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in their ability to maneuver

and in their selection of travel speeds. Comfort and convenience are low but tolerable. (E) Operations characterized

by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one-half to one-third the free-flow speed. Flow is unsta-

ble and potential for stoppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive queuing, or progression/timing are

the typical causes of the delays. (F) Forced-flow operations with high approach delays at critical signalized intersec-

tions. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of

downstream congestion. In addition, congestion can lead to increased fuel use and associated increases in air pollu-

tion.

Significance of the Indicator

This indicator shows the percentage of the roadways that are congested and create travel delays for the driving pub-

lic. Traffic delays have numerous costs for businesses and can contribute to traffic crashes and create intense frus-

tration for drivers trying to navigate these roads. Traffic congestion can even create difficulties for public safety vehi-

cles trying to respond to emergency situations.

Source

This data is provided by the Virginia Beach Public Works Department and is updated annually. The department did

not begin tracking this indicator until fiscal year 2005-06.

In 2010, the percent of roads in the two lowest grades for transportation effi-

ciency declined for the first time since the City began tracking this indicator.

Description

The transportation effi-

ciency scale for roads

ranges from grade “A” to

grade “F”. The full scale

and a description of each

grade is shown below. This

indicator measures the per-

cent of roads that are

graded as either an “E” or

an “F”.

18.0%18.2%

18.8% 18.8%18.4%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

22.0%

24.0%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fiscal Year

Percent of Virginia Beach Roads in the Two Lowest Grades for Transportation Efficiency

Significance of the Indicator

The appearance of the City is important at a number of levels. An aestheti-

cally pleasing environment can give residents a sense of civic and community

pride. As a tourist destination, it is important that the City remain aesthetically

pleasing in order to encourage new and repeat visitors.

Source

This data is from the Virginia Beach Citizen Survey, which is scheduled to be conducted every other year.

Citizen Satisfaction with the City’s Appearance

After increasing in the last two citizen surveys, citizen satisfaction with the City’s

appearance fell slightly in 2009. Although citizen satisfaction dipped, it still re-

mains very high at 94.0%

Description

This indicator is based on re-

sponses to the Virginia Beach

Citizen Survey. Participants

were asked to respond to the

statement “Overall, are you

Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Dis-

satisfied, or Very Dissatisfied

with the overall appearance of

the City”. This represents the

percentage of participants

who responded that they were

either “Very Satisfied” or

“Satisfied”.

92.8%

89.2%

91.4%

95.6%

94.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

Year Survey Conducted

Citizen Satisfaction with the City's Appearance

Significance of the Indicator

Transportation issues are very important to the City of Virginia Beach and the entire Hampton Roads region. The

ability to move goods and people around the City at relatively low cost is a substantial benefit for residents, and

also reduces the total cost of the goods and services they receive. However, congestion can increase these

costs. Strained and congested roads consume time and fuel, contribute to road and vehicle wear-and-tear, and

increase driver stress.

Source

This data is from the Virginia Beach Citizen

Survey, which is scheduled to be conducted

every other year.

Citizen Satisfaction with the Flow of Traffic

in Virginia Beach

Since the 2003 Citizen Survey, when this question was added to the survey,

citizen satisfaction with the flow of traffic has remained below 40%. During

the last two citizen surveys, citizen satisfaction with the flow of traffic in Vir-

ginia Beach has increased. Although the number has risen, it still remains

well below the City’s desired level. This is likely a reflection on the decreases

in transportation funding the City has received in recent years to complete

projects that would help to reduce congestion and increase transportation

efficiency.

Description

This indicator is based on re-

sponses to the Virginia Beach

Citizen Survey. Participants

were asked to respond to the

statement “Overall, are you

Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Dis-

satisfied, or Very Dissatisfied

with the flow of traffic in the

City”. This represents the per-

centage of participants who

responded that they were ei-

ther “Very Satisfied” or

“Satisfied”.

39.2%

32.8%36.0%

39.6%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

2003 2005 2007 2009

Year Survey Conducted

Citizen Satisfaction with the Flow of Traffic in Virginia Beach

In 2010, commuters in Virginia Beach had the fourth shortest commute time when compared to the residents of

other Hampton Roads cities.

Significance of the Indicator

The ability of an individual to commute to and from their place of work in a reasonable amount of time is impor-

tant to the quality of life of residents.

Long commutes affect personal lives and

worker productivity due to the time lost in

transit.

Source

This data is from the Virginia Beach Citi-

zen Survey, which is scheduled to be

conducted every other year.

Mean travel time to work increased for the second straight year in

2010. Although it increased, mean travel time has remained rela-

tively consistent over the past eight years and below the high of 23.6

minutes in 2002. This consistency could represent a positive reflec-

tion on the City’s road building program, and/or it could represent a

shift in commuting patterns from residents commuting to work in a

neighboring city to residents living and working in Virginia Beach.

Other Census data as well as data from the Bureau of Economic

Analysis indicate more residents are living and working in Virginia

Beach compared to previous years when many chose to live in Vir-

ginia Beach but worked elsewhere.

Description

This indicator measures the

average commute to work for

residents of Virginia Beach

regardless of their work loca-

tion.

Mean Travel Time to Work

23.6

21.7

22.9

23.023.4

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Min

ute

s

Calendar Year

Mean Travel Time to Work

27.5

23.4 24.8

21.0

27.4 28.7

21.6 21.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Min

ute

s

Comparison of Mean Travel Time to Work for Cities in Hampton Roads - 2010

Significance of the Indicator

The effectiveness of a public/mass transit system depends on geography, spatial/land use decisions in that

the service must be convenient to residential and employment centers. Mass transit must have reasonable

travel times, be safe and comfortable, and must be reasonably priced. The citizen’s philosophy of personal

freedom, the environment, gasoline prices, and the existing traffic congestion can all affect the demand for

mass transit services. An effective public transit system offers an important alternative for individuals who do

not own or do not wish to drive a car. Measuring the use of existing facilities and investment in transportation

infrastructure will help the City determine how to address future mobility needs. Mass transit can reduce con-

gestion and pollution (or help offset some of the demand created by automobiles), be a more cost effective

method of transportation (reduce road construction), and sometimes serves as the only means of transporta-

tion for certain segments of the population.

Source

The source for this data is the US Cen-

sus Bureau American Community

Survey. The survey was not conducted

in 2001. This data is updated annually.

Percent Who Commute to Work Using Public Transportation

The percent of the citizens in Virginia Beach utilizing public transportation re-

mained fairly consistent between 2000 and 2007. However, in 2008, the per-

centage of the population commuting via public transportation increased to

over 1.0%. This jump may be attributable to the increased cost of fuel. In

2009 and 2010 the percentage fell back under 1.0%.

Description

This indicator measures the

proportion of the population

that commutes using public

transportation.

1.0%

0.5%

1.4%

0.8%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Calendar Year

Percent of Virginia Beach Residents Who Commute Using Public Transportation

4.4%

0.8% 1.0%

4.1%

1.6%

0.5%

3.4%4.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

Comparison of the Percent of Residents Who Commute to Work Utilizing Public Transportation in Hampton Roads - 2010