Virginia’s Street Connectivity Policy

Nick DonohueAssistant Secretary of Transportation

Commonwealth of Virginia

2

Background

• Virginia, unlike most states, is responsible for the maintenance of most local streets

• In Virginia transportation funding is a state responsibility

• Local governments are responsible for land development and subdivision design

• General consensus that state transportation revenues are not sufficient – the legislature has tried to address transportation funding since 2002

• Since June 2008 more than $3 billion in highway construction projects in six year plan have been cancelled

3

Background

• Governor Kaine went into office in 2006 – one term governor

• First priority was to address state’s transportation needs

– New transportation revenues

– Improve coordination between transportation and land use

– New delivery model

– Greater accountability

4

Legislative Environment

• Weak consensus on how to address transportation funding. Strong resistance by majority party in one house of legislature to any new taxes– Abusive driver fees

– Use existing general fund revenues

– Allow local governments to impose taxes for transportation (Dillon Rule)

– Impact fees

• Concern that providing new transportation funding without addressing the disconnect between transportation and land use would not provide long term solution

5

Transportation and Land Use

• Kaine Administration worked with legislature on six initiatives to improve the coordination between transportation and land use– Traffic Impact Analysis: uniform, statewide standards to inform

citizens and decision makers

– Access Management: preserve public investment in existing highways

– Road Impact Fees: assign road improvement costs based on site design and location

– Urban Development Areas: promote compact development that incorporate principles of new urbanism

– Regional Transportation and Land Use Performance Measures

– Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements …

6

Legislative Environment

• Limited ability of state to control number or layout of new streets accepted for maintenance

• Convention subdivision layout increases congestion on major highway network

Recognition of disconnect between development approval by local government and perpetual state maintenance of associated new streets

7

Legislative Environment

• One group recommended that state discontinue practice of maintaining subdivision streets and require local governments to be responsible for maintenance of new streets

• Governor recommended that state establish standards to ensure that streets accepted for perpetual public maintenance provide adequate public benefit

• Governor’s proposal was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly and addressed impact on major highway network without un-funded street maintenance mandate to local governments

8

Subdivision Street Acceptance Standards

• Previously streets were only required to meet technical standards to be accepted into the state system for perpetual public maintenance

• Governor’s proposal directed the state transportation policy board to develop new secondary street acceptance requirements to ensure:

– Connectivity of road and pedestrian networks with the future and existing transportation network

– Minimize impervious surface area and stormwater runoff through reduced street widths

9

Subdivision Street Acceptance Standards – Problem Today

• Increased congestion

• Wider local streets

• Discourages other modes

• Impacts on neighborhoods

• Unsustainable burden on major roadways

Current development patterns often rely on isolated street networks

10

2.5 mi

0.25 mi

Subdivision Street Acceptance Standards

11

Subdivision Street Acceptance Standards – Street Connectivity

12

Subdivision Street Acceptance Standards – Overview

• Pedestrian accommodations required at urban and suburban densities

• Allow use of low impact development techniques

• Reduced street widths

• Flexible parking requirements

36’

13

Moving from a Concept to Policy:April 2007 to February 2009

• Initial public comment period held prior to drafting

• Secretary of Transportation established a policy committee to review initial VDOT draft – Developers, local government officials, consultants and other

stakeholders

• 20+ informal regional stakeholder meetings held across state

• Solicited public comment on proposed policy, held public hearings

• State transportation policy board input sought throughout process

14

Concerns with Policy

• My local street will become a high speed thoroughfare

• Cul-de-sacs are safer

• Market does not support connectivity

• Narrow streets hinder emergency response

• Sidewalks are unnecessary and costly

• Local governments will reject connections

15

Concern: Connectivity = High Speed Thoroughfares

• Perception based on conditions on through streets today where lack of connectivity forces all trips to use a single through street

• Through street of tomorrow will not be the same as the through street of today as policy will create a network of local streets to disperse traffic– Network of connect, narrow streets will reduce traffic volumes and

speeds on through streets

• Connected street networks do not increase the number of trips generated by development – A detached single family house will generate ~10 trips regardless of

street network

16

Concern: Connectivity = High Speed Thoroughfares

17

Concern: Cul-de-sacs are Safer

• Disconnected networks cause increased emergency response times and costs

• According to federal government, the leading cause of death for children in US is automobile accidents

• Disconnected street network requires most residential through streets be designed with widths that encourage higher vehicle speeds

• All vehicle trips and most pedestrian trips require use of the these streets to reach a destination

18

Concern: Cul-de-sacs are Safer

Wider Streets → Increased Speed & Crash Rates

Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency; Peter Swift, P. E., Dan Painter, AICP, Matthew Goldstein

19

Speed Impacts Safety in Neighborhoods

Concern: Cul-de-sacs are Safer

20

Concern: Cul-de-sacs are Safer

• Recent study by University of Virginia found that traffic fatality rates were significantly higher in localities with disconnected networks

• For the Richmond metropolitan area the study found:– Rates in Chesterfield and Henrico Counties were

– 111% greater than the City of Colonial Heights– 56% greater than City of Hopewell– 9% greater than the City of Richmond

– Rates in Hanover County were– 333% greater than Colonial Heights– 210% greater than Hopewell– 123% greater than Richmond

21

Concern: Market Does Not Support Connectivity

• Market is regulated and previous policy provided indirect financial support for cul-de-sacs

• New policy removes subsidy where streets that only provide private benefit will be privately maintained

• Original street networks developed in a grid pattern

• Federal Housing Administration adopted policies in the 1930s that influenced street network away from grid pattern– ‘Cul-de-sacs are the most attractive street layout’ 1

– ‘Subdivisions that are regarded as specially good by FHA will receive a more favorable loan rating’ 2

1. Michael Southward and Earn Ben-Joseph, Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997), p. 84.

2. Marc A. Weiss, The Rise of the Community Builders (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), p. 215.

22

Concern: Narrow Streets and Emergency Responders

• All government agencies promote public safety

• More than 80% of incidents for emergency responders are non-fires incidents such as accidents, medical emergencies, etc

• Disconnected, wide local streets encourage vehicle speeds that result in more accidents and more severe accidents

• Connectivity improves emergency response times and reduces costs– Lack of connectivity can leave emergency responders stuck in traffic– Street design to promote appropriate vehicles speeds essential to

community acceptance of connected streets

• Bulb-outs and other design features can help address site specific needs

23

Concern: Sidewalks and Pedestrian Accommodations

• Walking accounts for 10% of all trips nationally

• Appropriate accommodations are often not provide as an area develops or are discontinuous

• Experience has shown that demand exists in developed and rapidly developing areas

• Reduced street widths and flexible parking requirements can offset cost of facilities

24

Concern: Local Government Reaction to Connectivity

• In the past, there were not any consequences for removing long planned connections from plans

• Improved connectivity and street design will help address citizen concerns related to through streets

• If a long planned connection is removed from plans VDOT will make that connection the #1 priority for local highway funds– Cheaper to build missing local street

connections than widen the major highway network to accommodate the same traffic

25

Subdivision Street Acceptance Requirements

• New policy is intended to improve coordination between transportation and land use planning as well as:– Reduce future construction needs and vehicle miles traveled

– Reduce future operational costs

– Improve emergency response

– Reduce stormwater runoff

– Improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles

• Policy represents a “first step” and implementation will need to be monitored to identify deficiencies

• Committee has been established to review implementation

26

Lessons Learned

• Discuss and challenge long-standing perceptions– Are residents concerned about the concept or existing

characteristics of through streets?

• Address and balance stakeholder concerns to the extent possible– Connectivity, street width, safety and emergency responders

• Do not let perfect be the enemy of good– “Perfect” policy is not a sign of a balanced compromise

• Focus on policy goal – ‘Ensure adequate public benefit for expenditure of taxpayer

funds’

Virginia’s Street Connectivity Policy

Nick DonohueAssistant Secretary of Transportation

Commonwealth of Virginia