virginia department of transportation · planworks case study route 29 corridor assessment,...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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

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

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

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

recordofpublicinputgiveninthisreportwill(iftheCountyBOSconcurs)serveasastartingpointtoimplement

theprojectsshowninTable3.ThespecificprojectsareshowninAppendixCofthisreport.

For More Information

Contacts Resources AmyO’Leary,VDOTAssociateDirectorVirginiaTransportationResearchCouncil434‐293‐1995,amy.oleary@vdot.virginia.govRickYoungblood,VDOTTransportationPlanningDirectorVDOTLynchburgDistrict434‐856‐8331,rick.youngblood@vdot.virginia.govChengYan,FHWAPlanning/EnvironmentalSpecialist202‐366‐9206,Cheng.Yan@dot.gov

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)

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

Harderquestionsdesignedtoelicitlongertermideas

Howcanthiscorridorbestservethelonger‐termneedsofCampbellCounty,forthenext20years? Howcanthecorridorbestservethelong‐termsneedsofthelargerregion,forthenext20years?

QuestionDesignedtoElicitSpecificSolutions

Whatspecificideaswouldyouliketobeconsideredinthedevelopmentofthiscorridor?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

FigureA5.PlanWorksAssessmentUsedDuringCOR‐6

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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)

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.

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.

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)?

Improvepedestrianaccesstopointswithinthecorridor

Connectivityindex(orsomeothermeasureindicatingtheextenttowhichstreetsareinterconnected)Tabulatethenumberofparcelswhereconnectionpointsforpedestriansexist

PossiblyaGISlayeroflocallanddevelopment

Asthispertainstofuturelanduse,somedatadetailsmaybemissingfromanticipatedfuturedevelopment

Improvefreightaccesswithinthecorridor

TraveltimetotheNorfolkSoutherngeneralfreightfacility(whichofferspiggybackservicefortrucktorail

Thefromwhichtravelshouldbemeasuredisrelevant

Provideanequallevelofimprovementstoallresidentsofthecorridor.

Impactsonhighandlowincomeareas:aretheythesame

Usecensusdatatoidentifyhighandlowincomeareas.Usethesimulationmodeltodetermineiftheseareasareimpactedequally.

IsCensusincomedataavailableattheblocklevel(orlevelsuitableforanalysis?)CanSynchro/SimTrafficbeusedtoidentifypositiveandnegativeimpactsinthecorridor

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

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‐

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

Improvereliability

TravelTimeIndex PlanningTimeIndex BufferTimeIndex

Thethreeindices(traveltime,planningtime,andbuffertime)maybeinfluencedmorebyrecurringcongestion.

Numberofdrivewayspermileb Numberofmediancrossoversper

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

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

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.

SolutionSets1and2Installwestboundleftturnlane

Extendeastboundleftturnlane

Installcommercialdriveway(right‐in,right‐out,limitedlefts)

Closemedian

SolutionSet3Installcontinuousrightturnlaneeastoftheintersection

Installtwo‐wayleftturnlanewestoftheintersection

SolutionSet4Addshareduse‐pathforbicyclistsandpedestrians(eastboundandwestbound)

FigureB7.ExamplesofImprovementsfromtheFourCandidateSolutionSetsattheIntersectionofRussellWoodsDriveandRoute29.

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

morethantentimesthatamount(4.90)foranotherintersection(Route29andabusinesssouthofBakerRoad),asshowninFigureB8.

FigureB8.ExamplesofEliminatingLeftTurns(ExceptFromRoute29)atT‐intersections.(left:DennisRiddleDrive.right:accessforabusinesssouthofBakerRoad.)

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

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.

PMOverallIntersectionDelay/Veh.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

FigureB11.Route29BlendedSolutionMatrix

Attendees’answerstothefollowingquestionswererecorded:

Doyouthinksomepeoplemightobjecttoaparticularsolution?Whatobjectionsdoyouthinktheymighthave?

Whatcouldbedonetoimproveorenhancethesolutionpackage? Arethereanysolutionsthatyoupersonallywouldbewillingtoactivelysupportandhelpimplement?

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.”

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

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.

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

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

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.

AppendixC.LocationofProjectsinTable1

Table1listsseveralsiteswhereimprovementsarebeingmade,suchastheadditionofleftturnlanes.FiguresC1‐C6showsthelocationoftheseimprovementsthroughoutthe6.6milecorridor.

FiguresC1andC2showthekeyforunderstandingthetypesofimprovementsmadeandthedivisionofthecorridorineightsections.FiguresC3,C4,C5,andC6showtheimprovementsineachoftheeightsections.

FigureC1.KeytoImprovementsShown(ThisdrawingwasrevisedinFebruary2017andtherevisedversionisshownhere)

FigureC2.OverviewofEightCorridorSections.(Section1isthenorthernmostsection;Section8isthesouthernmostsection.)

FigureC3.ImprovementsinSections1and3

FigureC4.ImprovementsinSections2and4

FigureC5.ImprovementsinSections5and7.

FigureC6.ImprovementsinSections6and8.

virginia department of transportation · planworks case study route 29 corridor assessment,...

Documents

planworks communication profile

agenda - virginia department of transportation

2020 citywide intelligent transportation systems (its)...

highway virginia) · highway & transportation research...

sponsoring - virginia department of transportation

virginia department of transportation e-zpass … department...

central virginia transportation authority

final - virginia department of transportation

virginia department of transportation - home...baltimore,...

transportation in virginia vaco conference

agenda - northern virginia transportation authority

county of fairfax, virginia department of transportation...

transportation alternatives program - virginia

virginia department of transportation - va...

project description - northern virginia transportation

shrp implementation planworks · 10/17/2016 · shrp...

west virginia department of transportation division...

abutments - virginia department of transportation

virginia pupil transportation - vapt

virginia department of transportation materials …