Linda T. Johnson, Chair, Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr., Vice-Chair

The Regional Building 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 757-420-8300

Robert A. Crum, Jr., Executive Director

May 31, 2017 Memorandum #2017-49 TO: HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee BY: Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director RE: Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017 The next HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 7, 2017, in the Regional Building Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake. MK/sc Voting Members: Steve Froncillo, CH C. Earl Sorey, Jr., CH Garrey W. Curry, Jr., GL Anne Ducey-Ortiz, GL Lynn Allsbrook, HA John Yorks, HA Dennis Carney, IW Jamie Oliver, IW Richard Rudnicki, IW Paul Holt, III, JC Tamara Rosario, JC Britta Ayers, NN Jacqueline Kassel, NN Bryan Stilley, NN Robert D. Brown, NO Thelma Drake, NO Jeffrey K. Raliski, NO Ellen Roberts, PQ Debbie Vest, PQ Dannon O’Connell, PQ

James Wright, PO Susan Wilson, PO Sherry Earley, SU LJ Hansen, SU Robert E. Lewis, SU Robert K. Gey, VB Phil Pullen, VB Brian Solis, VB Dan G. Clayton III, WM Carolyn Murphy, WM Aaron Small, WM Earl Anderson, YK J. Mark Carter, YK Timothy C. Cross, YK Jitender Ramchandani, DRPT Jamie Jackson, HRT Dawn Odom, VDOT Eric Stringfield, VDOT Jeffrey A. Florin, VPA Joshua Moore, WATA

April 26, 2017 Page 2

The Regional Building 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 757-420-8300

Voting Alternates: Eric J. Martin, CH Emily Gibson, GL Tripp Little, GL Terry P. O'Neill, HA Angela Rico, HA Claudia Cotton, NN David Wilkinson, NN Brian Fowler, NO Youssef Khalil, PO Robert P. Goumas, SU

Jason Souders, SU Katie Shannon, VB Mark Shea, VB Rodney S. Rhodes, WM Amy Parker, YK Nick Britton, DRPT Keisha Branch, HRT Tony Gibson, VDOT Bryant Porter, VDOT Barbara Creel, WATA

Nonvoting Members: Ivan P. Rucker, FHWA Melissa McGill, FTA Rhonda Murray, NAVY

Nonvoting Alternates: Michael King, NAVY

Agenda HRTPO

Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 7, 2017

The Regional Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia

9:30 AM 1. Call to Order

2. Introductions

3. Public Comment Period (Limit 3 minutes per individual)

4. Submitted Public Comments

5. Comments and Updates from State and Federal Agencies and Military Liaisons

6. Approval of Agenda

AGENDA:

7. Minutes

8. FY 2015-2018 TIP Revision – CMAQ Transfer Request – Jackie Kassel, Newport News

9. Moving the Economy: Final – Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO

10. 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan: Draft Socioeconomic Data Forecast Update – Greg Grootendorst, HRPDC

11. Update on Key Regional Efforts – Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO

12. Regional Priority Projects: Round 2 – Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO

13. Identifying Candidates Streets for Conversion from One-Way to Two-Way: Draft – Robert Case, HRTPO

14. Birthplace of America Trail: Draft – Steve Lambert, HRTPO

15. Draft FY 2018-2023 Six-Year Improvement Program – Dawn Odom, VDOT, and Jitender Ramchandani, DRPT

16. 2017 CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process: Overview and Timeline – Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO

17. Active Transportation Subcommittee – Steve Lambert, HRTPO

18. Three-Month Tentative Schedule

19. For Your Information

20. Announcements

21. Old/New Business

ADJOURNMENT

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER The meeting will be called to order by the Chair at approximately 9:30 a.m. AGENDA ITEM #2: INTRODUCTIONS The Chair will provide an opportunity for introductions of new members or guests.

AGENDA ITEM #3: PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Members of the public are invited to address the TTAC. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. AGENDA ITEM #4: SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no submitted public comments. AGENDA ITEM #5: COMMENTS AND UPDATES FROM STATE AND FEDERAL

AGENCIES AND MILITARY LIAISONS

Representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Virginia Port Authority, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Military are invited to provide comments and updates to the TTAC. AGENDA ITEM #6: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Members are provided an opportunity to add or delete items from the agenda. Any item for which a member desires an action from the TTAC should be submitted at this time, as opposed to under “Old/New Business”.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #7: MINUTES

Summary minutes of the TTAC meeting held on May 3, 2017 are attached. Attachment 7

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the minutes.

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 5, 2017 – Page 1 Prepared by S. Core

Summary Minutes of the HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting

May 3, 2017

The HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting was called to order at 9:32 a.m. in the Regional Building Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance:

TTAC Voting Members in Attendance: Paul Holt (Chair, JC) Sherry Earley (Vice Chair, SU) Steve Froncillo (CH) Garrey Curry (GL) Lynn Allsbrook (HA) John Yorks (HA) Angela Rico (Alternate, HA) Richard Rudnicki (IW) Jackie Kassel (NN) Bryan Stilley (NN)

Jeff Raliski (NO) Thelma Drake (NO) Susan Wilson (PO) LJ Hansen (SU) Robert Lewis (SU) Phil Pullen (VB) Katie Shannon (Alternate, VB) Mark Shea (Alternate, VB) Carolyn Murphy (WM) Tim Cross (YK)

Jennifer DeBruhl (DRPT) Jamie Jackson (HRT) Dawn Odom (VDOT) Eric Stringfield (VDOT) Jeff Florin (VPA) Dannan O’Connell (PQ) Josh Moore (WATA)

TTAC Voting Members Absent: Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL) Dennis Carney (IW) Tammy Mayer Rosario (JC) Britta Ayers (NN) Jamie Oliver (IW)

Ellen Roberts (PQ) Debbie Vest (PQ) Earl Sorey (CH) Robert Brown (NO) James Wright (PO)

Dan Clayton III (WM) Aaron Small (WM) J. Mark Carter (YK)

TTAC Nonvoting Members in Attendance: Rhonda Murray (NAVY) TTAC Nonvoting Members Absent: Melissa McGill (FTA) Ivan Rucker (FHWA)

HRTPO Staff: Sam Belfield Sam Braden Robert Cofield Kathlene Grauberger Theresa Jones

Mike Kimbrel Steve Lambert John Mihaly Kendall Miller Keith Nichols

Joe Paulus Leonardo Pineda Camelia Ravanbakht Dale Stith Shirley Core

Others Recorded Attending: Allison Alexander (Hampton); Keisha Branch (HRT); Angela Biney (VDOT); Tynell Johnson (VDOT); Carl Jackson (VDOT); Bob Matthias (Virginia Beach); Kelly Waldrop (VDOT); Benjamin Camras (Chesapeake); Karen McPherson (McPherson Consulting); Sarah McCoy (VPA) Kevin Page (HRTAC).

Attachment 7

Summary TTAC Minutes – May 3, 2017 – Page 2 Prepared by S. Core

Introductions Ms. Dawn Odom introduced Ms. Sonya Hallums-Ponton, Urban Programs Director for VDOT. Mr. Phil Pullen introduced Ms. Katie Shannon and Mr. Mark Shea who were serving as alternates for Virginia Beach. Mr. Eric Stringfield introduced Mr. Tynell Johnson intern with VDOT. Mr. Jeff Florin introduced Ms. Sarah McCoy, Port of Virginia. Mr. Dannan O’Connell was introduced as the appointed Poquoson member.

Public Comment Period There were no public comments. Submitted Public Comments There were no submitted public comments in the agenda packet. Comments and Updates from State and Federal Agencies and the Military There were no comments from the Federal Highway Administration. Ms. Dawn Odom, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), thanked those who participated in the locally administered programs workshop. There were no comments from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). Mr. Jeff Florin, Virginia Port Authority (VPA), noted that the “COSCO Development”, the largest container ship to call on an East Coast Port, arrives in Hampton Roads on Monday, May 8, 2017. He stated that the ship is 30% bigger than any ship that has previously called on an East Coast Port. There were no comments from the Navy. Approval of Agenda Chair Holt asked for additions or deletions to the TTAC Agenda. Hearing none, Mr. Allsbrook MOVED to approve the agenda; seconded by Mr. Stilley. Summary Minutes Chair Holt reported the TTAC summary minutes from the April 5, 2017 meeting were included in the May 3, 2017 TTAC Agenda Packet. Chair Holt asked for any additions or corrections to the minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Cross Moved to approve the minutes; seconded by Ms. Murray The Motion Carried.

Attachment 7

Summary TTAC Minutes – May 3, 2017 – Page 3 Prepared by S. Core

FY 2015-2018 TIP Amendment – WATA

Mr. Joshua Moore, Deputy Executive Director of the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority (WATA), requested to amend the FY 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to revise the funding associated with the four WATA projects for which funding needs have changed due to the purchase of new replacement buses. The specifics of the requested funding changes are as follows:

• WAT0001: Operating Assistance

• Increase FY 2018 Section 5307 funding by $42,000 • Increase FY 2018 Local funding by $10,500 • Increase FY 2018 Section 5311 funding by $29,000

• WAT0053: Capital Cost of Contracting

• Decrease FY 2018 Section 5307 funding by $78,800 • Decrease FY 2018 Local funding by $19,700

• WAT0054: Preventative Maintenance

• Increase FY 2017 Section 5307 funding by $32,000 • Increase FY 2018 Section 5307 funding by $36,800 • Increase FY 2017 Local funding by $8,000 • Increase FY 2018 Local funding by $9,200

• WAT0055: Project Administration

• Delete all funding in FY 2017

This request has been made available for public review and comment from April 26, 2017 through May 10, 2017. The Transportation Technical Advisory Committee has recommended approval of the TIP amendment.

Mr. Florin Moved to recommend HRTPO Board approval of the TIP Amendment; seconded by Ms. Murphy. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 7

Summary TTAC Minutes – May 3, 2017 – Page 4 Prepared by S. Core

FY 2015-2018 TIP Revision – CMAQ Transfer Request - VPA

Mr. Jeff Florin, Senior Director of Port Development for The Virginia Port Authority (VPA), requested to transfer a total of $4,542,249 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds from one canceled project to two other VPA CMAQ projects. The specifics of the request are described below:

• Transfer a total of $42,249 in FY 2013 CMAQ funds, including State Match, from the Green Operator Ocean-Going Vessel Hybridization and Fuel Switching Demo Project (UPC 103927) to the Green Operator Truck Replacement Program (UPC 103928).

• Transfer a total of $4,500,000 in CMAQ funds, including State Match, from the Green

Operator Ocean-Going Vessel Hybridization and Fuel Switching Demo Project (UPC 103927) to the Expanded Marine Highway Barge Service project (UPC T19506), as follows:

o FY 2017: $1,000,000 o FY 2018: $1,500,000 o FY 2019:$ 1,500,000 o FY 2020: $500,000

• Since the Expanded Marine Highway Barge Service project was approved for a total

cost of $4,500,000 and that amount is being transferred from UPC 103927, $543,620 in FY 2023 CMAQ funds, including State Match, that was previously allocated to the Expanded Marine Highway Barge Service project will be transferred to the HRTPO CMAQ Reserve Account.

Should the HRTPO Board approve the CMAQ fund transfer described above, the FY 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) will be amended to update the funding information associated with the project. This request has been made available for public review and comment from April 26, 2017 through May 10, 2017.

Mr. Cross Moved to recommend HRTPO Board approval of the CMAQ Transfer Request; seconded by Mr. Stringfield. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 7

Summary TTAC Minutes – May 3, 2017 – Page 5 Prepared by S. Core

2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan: Draft Socioeconomic Data Forecast Mr. Greg Grootendorst, HRPDC Chief Economist, presented the forecast for the 2045 Long-Range Transportation plan. He stated the purpose for the forecast is to provide an impartial and consistent set of socioeconomic projections that assist organizations when planning for the region’s future. He noted staff has met with each locality and all the planning directors while drafting the forecast. He stressed this forecast is intentionally focused solely on 2045 to prevent influence from previous forecast. Next steps include:

• May 12: Send out complete draft socioeconomic forecast for review • May 31: Receive submitted comments • June 7: Present submitted comments to TTAC • July 5: Present final socioeconomic forecast to TTAC • July 20:Present socioeconomic forecast to HRTPO board • Provide localities with jurisdiction control totals for assignment to TAZs

Mr. Grootendorst requested comments be submitted to him by May 31, 2017. The Port of Virginia, A Partner in Progress

Mr. Jeff Florin, VPA Senior Director of Port Development, introduced Ms. Sarah McCoy, VPA Director of State and Local Government Affairs. Ms. McCoy announced her presentation would provide a deep dive into three key areas - water, on-terminal, and surface transportation. She began by providing a brief operational history of the Port’s six facilities. Ms. McCoy explained the current depth of the channel is 50ft. The Port is currently working with the Army Corps of Engineers to increase depth to 55ft and expects to have the project completed by September 2018. Increasing the depth of the channel to 55ft will remove tidal dependency.. She explained the Panama Canal and Suez Canal ship alliances recently restructured going from four major ship lines handling 90% of cargo to three ship lines using larger vessels making fewer trips. She reported larger ships equal larger surges of cargo. The COSCO Development, the largest container ship to call on an East Coast port is set to make its first appearance in Hampton Roads on May 8, 2017. The ship has a capacity of 13,092 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEU).

Ms. McCoy reported the Port is currently expanding operations to increase container capacity by 1 million annually, a 40% increase that will create 286,000 new jobs, $38 billion in spending and $1.1 billion in new State and Local taxes. She noted the Port of Virginia is now the highest rail-volume port on the East Coast.

Ms. McCoy described a new reservation system the Port will implement in the second quarter, noting that implementation of this system will permit more efficient movement of cargo by allowing drivers to schedule a pick up time - thereby reducing congestion and wait times.

Attachment 7

Summary TTAC Minutes – May 3, 2017 – Page 6 Prepared by S. Core

Transit Capital Program Update

Ms. Jennifer DeBruhl, DRPT Chief of Public Transportation, DRPT explained the Revenue Advisory Board was created by HB 1359 to develop a proposal for new revenues to replace expiring 2007 Capital Project Revenue bonds. The board is also responsible for developing a project based prioritization strategy for transit capital projects state of good repair and expansion projects (using the same factors as Smart Scale). She stated the loss of the bonds will result in a 44% decrease in transit capital funding. She reported state of good repair and minor enhancement projects will be scored and ranked separately from major expansion projects and that all eligible projects will receive a score and ranking.

The advisory board submitted an interim report on January 1, 2017 to the Governor and General Assembly and will submit a final report no later than August 1, 2017. The reports will be posted on the General Assembly’s website.

Bike Walk Hampton

Ms. Alison Alexander, Hampton Placemaking Planner, briefed the committee on the City’s first strategic bicycle and pedestrian plan. Adopted in December of 2016, this plan will guide program and policy recommendations as well as infrastructure investments.

The plan concentrates on seven master plan areas:

• Coliseum Central • N King Street Corridor • Downtown • Kecoughtan Road Corridor • Buckroe • Phoebus • Fort Monroe

She reported the challenges encountered for bike and pedestrian traffic are narrow bridges, lack of connectivity, lack of amenities, high traffic roads and lack of clarity. Recommendations for this program include developing a public safety and awareness campaign, provide bicycle and pedestrian amenities, implement bike share program and develop a signature path/trail.

Ms. Alexander announced May is bike month and invited TTAC members to participate in several bike month activities the City of Hampton are promoting.

HRTPO Advisory Committees: Status Report

Dr. Camelia Ravanbahkt, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, provided a brief overview on HRTPO committee structure. She outlined the recent activities of the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC), and the Rail and Public Transportation Task Force (RPTTF).

Attachment 7

Summary TTAC Minutes – May 3, 2017 – Page 7 Prepared by S. Core

Three-Month Tentative Schedule Chair Holt outlined the Three-Month Tentative Schedule in the Agenda Packet. For Your Information Chair Holt reviewed the items in the For Your Information section of the Agenda Packet. Announcements Chair Holt reviewed the items in the Announcements section of the Agenda Packet. Old/New Business Chair Holt advised the July TTAC meeting fell the day after Independence Day and discussed with the committee moving the date to Wednesday, July 12. Mr. Allsbrook Moved to recommend the TTAC July meeting be moved to July 12; seconded by Mr. Florin. The Motion Carried. Ms. Thelma Drake requested an update on current studies. Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, suggested this be an agenda item for the June TTAC meeting. Adjournment

With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

Attachment 7

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #8: FY 2015-2018 TIP REVISION – CMAQ TRANSFER REQUEST

Jackie Kassel, Newport News

Attached is a request from the City of Newport News to transfer a total of $2,531,737 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds from two completed projects to another City CMAQ project that is currently underway. The requested transfer of funding will allow the project that was originally to implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements at 12 intersections to be expanded to improve 70 intersections, as well as the underlying central communications system. The specifics of the request are described below:

• Newport News Intelligent Transportation System Upgrades (UPC 100608) o Change project description to “Includes improvements to traffic signal

controllers, traffic monitoring equipment, data collection and analysis equipment, and traffic communications infrastructure citywide”.

o Update project cost from $300,000 to $2,831,737, all as Preliminary Engineering (PE) cost.

o Transfer $2,497,818 FY 2009 CMAQ ($2,126,423 federal and $371,395 state match) from UPC 52350

o Transfer $33,919 FY 2012 CMAQ ($27,135 federal and 6,784 state match) from UPC 98829

• Newport News Signal System Improvements (UPC 52350)

o Transfer $2,497,818 FY 2009 CMAQ ($2,126,423 federal and $371,395 state match) to UPC 100608

• Jefferson Avenue Corridor Improvements (UPC 98829)

o Transfer $33,919 FY 2012 CMAQ ($27,135 federal and 6,784 state match) to UPC 100608

Should the HRTPO Board approve the CMAQ fund transfers and project revisions described above, the FY 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) will be amended to account for the requested changes. This request has been made available for public review and comment from May 31, 2017 through June 14, 2017. Ms. Jackie Kassel, Newport News Chief of Transportation Engineering, will brief the TTAC on this item. Attachment 8 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Recommend HRTPO Board approval of the CMAQ fund transfers and the associated TIP amendment.

Attachment 8

Attachment 8

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #9: MOVING THE ECONOMY: FINAL Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO

The draft report was presented to the TTAC during its January 2017 meeting and underwent public review from January 4, 2017 through January 18, 2017. Comments received have been addressed and documented in Appendix E of the final report Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, will brief the TTAC on this item. Enclosure 9

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Recommend HRTPO Board approval of the final report.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #10: 2045 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN: DRAFT SOCIOECONOMIC DATA FORECAST UPDATE Greg Grootendorst, HRPDC

During its May meeting, the TTAC received a briefing on the draft socioeconomic forecast control totals for population and employment for each jurisdiction for use in the development of the 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Members were asked to review the draft figures and to submit comments to the HRPDC Chief Economist. Mr. Greg Grootendorst, HRPDC Chief Economist, will brief the TTAC on comments that have been received. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Recommend HRTPO Board approval of the socioeconomic forecast for use in the development of the 2045 LRTP.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #11: UPDATE ON KEY REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORTS Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO

HRTPO staff is currently involved in the following key regional planning efforts:

• Analysis of the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) Components not included in Alternative A

• Route 58 Corridor Study

• Hampton Roads Corridors of Commerce Study

• Regional Transit Opportunities Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, will brief the TTAC on these efforts. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

For discussion and informational purposes.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #12: REGIONAL PRIORITY PROJECTS: ROUND 2 Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO

During the HRTPO Board meeting of May 18, 2017, the City of Virginia Beach requested guidance from the Board (Attachment A) regarding the possibility of adding the I-264/Independence Boulevard interchange to the list of Regional Priority Projects. Following significant discussion, the Board voted unanimously to direct HRTPO staff to work with the TTAC to review and identify projects in the 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) that could be considered as Round 2 Hampton Roads Regional Priority Projects. Included in the Board action was that Round 1 projects (Attachment B) will not be impacted in terms of priority or funding by the work done for Round 2. TTAC members will be asked to review their 2040 LRTP projects and submit candidates for possible inclusion in Round 2 Hampton Roads Regional Priority Projects. HRTPO staff will evaluate the projects and convene a meeting of the LRTP Subcommittee to develop a recommended list of Round 2 projects for consideration by the TTAC and HRTPO Board. Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, will brief the TTAC on this item. Attachment A – City of Virginia Beach Letter Attachment B – Maps of Hampton Roads Regional Priority Projects (Round 1) RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review the 2040 LRTP projects and submit candidates for Round 2 Hampton Roads Regional Priority Projects to Dale Stith (dstith@hrtpo.org) by COB Wednesday, June 21, 2017.

Attachment 12-A

Attachment 12-A

Attachment 12-B

I-64 Peninsula Widening: Segment 1 $100 Million in Federal/State Funding Under Construction $44 Million HRTF

I-64 Peninsula Widening: Segment 2 Under Construction $213 Million HRTF

I-64 Peninsula Widening: Segment 3 $145 Million in SMART SCALE funding Construction Pending $156 Million HRTF

I-64/HRBT Widening PE (Geotechnical and Survey)

Funded $25 Million HRTF

I-64/I-264 Interchange Improvements $17 Million in Federal/State Funding Phase 1 - Under Construction Phase 2 - PE and ROW Funded Phase 3 - Design Funded $217 Million HRTF

I-64 Southside/ High-Rise Bridge Widening

Phase 1 - Fully Funded $600 Million HRTF

US Route 460/58/13 Connector PE Funded $5 Million HRTF

Remaining Segments of HRCS SEIS Study Funded $3 Million HRTF

March 2017

Hampton Roads Regional Transportation Priority Projects “Moving Projects Forward – HRTF Investments”

Projects Planned and Prioritized by HRTPO, Powered by HRTAC

Bowers Hill Interchange Study Funded $4 Million HRTF

Attachment 12-B

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #13: IDENTIFYING CANDIDATE STREETS FOR CONVERSION FROM ONE-WAY TO TWO-WAY: DRAFT Robert Case, HRTPO

For the benefit of HRTPO member cities, HRTPO staff worked with volunteers from those cities in the preparation of this study identifying specific opportunities for converting one-way streets to two-way operation. The draft report is enclosed. Dr. Robert Case, HRTPO Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TTAC on this item. Enclosure 13 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review the draft report and submit comments to Rob Case (rcase@hrtpo.org) by COB Wednesday, June 21, 2017.

1

REPORT DOCUMENTATION

TITLE

Identifying Candidate Streets

for Conversion from One-Way to Two-Way

ORGANIZATION

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Org.

723 Woodlake Drive

Chesapeake, Virginia 23320

http://www.hrtpo.org

REPORT DATE

May 2017 DRAFT

AUTHOR

Robert B. Case, PE, PhD

ABSTRACT

For the benefit of the HRTPO member cities, HRTPO staff prepared this study to identify

specific opportunities for converting one-way streets to two-way operation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document was prepared by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

(HRTPO) in cooperation with its member agencies. The contents of this report reflect the views

of the HRTPO. The HRTPO staff is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data

presented herein. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The

contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the FHWA, FTA, VDOT or

DRPT. FHWA, FTA, VDOT or DRPT acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment of the

objectives of this program does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any

recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a

commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact

assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be necessary.

NON-DISCRIMINATION

The HRTPO assures that no person shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, handicap,

sex, age, or income status as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent

authorities, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject

to discrimination under any program or activity. The HRTPO Title VI Plan provides this

assurance, information about HRTPO responsibilities, and a Discrimination Complaint Form.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 3

Literature Review 4

One-way Candidates for Two-way Operation in Hampton Roads 20

Conclusion and Next Steps 47

Bibliography 48

3

INTRODUCTION

Although, in the past, one-way operation was applied to various streets across the U.S., some

cities have recently converted specific one-way streets to two-way operation and found benefits.

The purpose, therefore, of this study is to help our local governments by identifying one-way

streets in Hampton Roads which may be suitable for conversion to two-way operation. During

the preparation of the study, HRTPO staff met twice with staff from Newport News, Norfolk,

and Portsmouth who had volunteered to provide feedback.

As a basis for identifying two-way candidates, HRTPO staff first explores the existing literature.

4

LITERATURE REVIEW

HRTPO staff reviews the one-way/two-way literature in two sections below:

1. Pros and Cons of Converting One-way Streets to Two-way

2. Methods of Identifying One-way Streets for Conversion

Pros and Cons of Converting One-way Streets to Two-way

The existing literature1 identifies several inter-related transportation issues affected by the choice

of operating a street as one-way or two-way:

1. Capacity (and Level-of-Service)

2. Confusion (of driver)

3. Cost

4. Crime

5. Economics

6. Freedom (of movement)

7. Parking

8. Safety

9. Travel Time (and Speed)

10. Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)

The literature contains a mixture of data: some studies supporting conversion to two-way, some

extolling the virtues of one-way operation. HRTPO staff summarized these data below by issue,

listed alphabetically.

1 See Bibliography at end of this document.

5

Capacity (and Level-of-Service)

Conventional wisdom appears to be that one-way streets have higher capacity per lane than two-

way streets:

According to the before-after study of a conversion project, “assumptions can be made

that traffic efficiencies are typically gained by converting two-way streets to one-way

operation.”2

ITE’s Traffic Engineering Handbook reads, “One-way streets…are generally used to

reduce congestion and increase the capacity of the roadway network….”3

Yet at least one study indicates otherwise. In the before-after study of the conversion of

Hennepin and 1st Avenues in Minneapolis

4, the local department of public works found:

While auto volumes were practically unchanged (down 2%), the number of “failing”

(LOS E or F) intersections declined from four to two.

Confusion

One of the stated disbenefits of one-way operation is confusion of drivers:

According to a TRB article5: “…one-way networks are seen as confusing…”

According to a consultant’s paper: “…the occasional visitors to downtown…are often

confused and disoriented on encountering a one-way street network.”6

2 Hennepin Avenue and 1

st Avenue Two-Way Conversion Evaluation Report, Dept. of Public Works, Minneapolis

MN, July 2010, page 14. 3 Traffic Engineering Handbook, ITE, Fifth Edition, 1999, page 226.

4 Hennepin Avenue and 1

st Avenue Two-Way Conversion Evaluation Report, Dept. of Public Works, Minneapolis

MN, July 2010, page 14. 5 Analytical Capacity Comparison of One-Way and Two-Way Signalized Street Networks, by Vikash V. Gayah and

Carlos F. Daganzo, Transportation Research Record No. 2301, TRB, Washington DC, 2012, page 76. 6 Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks?, by G. Wade Walker, Walter M. Kulash,

and Brian T. McHugh of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. (Orlando), TRB Circular E-C019, Urban Street Symposium, Dec. 2000, page 4.

6

Cost

Several studies have reported estimated and actual costs of converting one-way streets to two-

way operation. The pro-one-way paper by the Center for the American Dream of Mobility and

Home Ownership (CAD)7 includes the following to demonstrate that one-way-to-two-way

conversions are “costly”:

“St. Petersburg estimates that restriping, signal changes, and other changes required to

convert streets from one-way to two-way cost more than $140,000 per intersection;”

“Conversion of nine one-way streets to two-way in downtown Austin is expected to cost

$15 million;” [$1.7m per street]

“San Jose spent $15.4 million converting ten streets to two-way;” [$1.5m per street]

“A plan to turn a one-way couplet in Hamilton, Ontario to two two-way streets is

estimated to cost CA$3.2 million (about US$2.0 million);” [$1m per street]

Other studies, however, have shown lower costs:

According to an article for Main Street America8, “In Greensboro, N.C….the estimate to

convert one street was $30,000 per intersection.”

In a feasibility study of the conversion of six one-way streets in Louisville9, a consultant

estimated the proposed conversion of six streets (totaling 2.0 miles) to cost $2.2m

($400k per street; $1m per mile).

In a before-and-after study of the conversion of a 1.25 mile couplet of two of the above

Louisville streets (Brook Street and 1st Street, totaling 2.5 miles), Riggs and

Gilderbloom10

reported a cost of $250,000, or $100,000 per mile.

Crime

In the aforementioned before-and-after study of the conversion of a 1.25 mile couplet of two

Louisville streets—Brook Street and 1st Street—Riggs and Gilderbloom reported a 15% and

30% reduction in overall crime (respectively).11

The authors theorized that the reduction in

speeds made “getaways” more difficult.

7 No Two Ways About It: One-Way Streets are Better Than Two-Way, by Michael Cunneen and Randal O’Toole,

Center for the American Dream of Mobility and Home Ownership, Issue Paper 2-2005, Feb. 2005, page 9. 8 Converting One-way Streets to Two-way, by John D. Edwards, from Main Street Story of the Week, Main Street

America (preservationnation.org), June 2002. 9 Downtown Louisville Two-Way Study, by ENTRAN for Downtown Development Corporation, Louisville KY, Oct.

2009, page 18. 10

Two-Way Street Conversion: Evidence of Increased Livability in Louisville, by William Riggs and John Gilderbloom, Journal of Planning and Research 1-14, 2015, DOI: 10.1177/0739456X15593147, page 3. 11

Two-Way Street Conversion: Evidence of Increased Livability in Louisville, by William Riggs and John Gilderbloom, Journal of Planning and Research 1-14, 2015, DOI: 10.1177/0739456X15593147, page 7.

7

Economics

Commercial Property Values

One recent study saw positive economic impacts of converting one-way streets to two-way

operation. According to an article for Main Street America12

:

“Perhaps the most important reason for changing the traffic flow of a downtown street is

to improve the economic well-being of the commercial district. A survey of 25 towns

and cities that have converted their main streets [to two-way operation] show that many

have experienced significant reductions in vacant floor space after the conversion.”

“All of the communities surveyed reported positive results after converting their one-

way streets to two-way traffic, and many reported substantial private investments

stimulated by conversions that were coupled with streetscape projects. West Palm Beach,

for example, reported $300 million in private investment in areas where city hall had

invested $10 million in public funding.”

Likewise, another study saw negative impacts of converting two-way streets to one-way

operation. According to a TRB Circular13

:

“In our experience, most of these retailers prefer the exposure and accessibility offered

by a location on a two-way street. This fact is supported by examples such as Vine Street

in Cincinnati, where 40% of businesses in this economically depressed downtown

corridor closed after the street was converted from two-way to one-way.”

However, two articles about converting two-way streets to one-way told a different story:

According to a 1972 ITE article14

by the Commissioner of the New York City

Department of Traffic, “Land values on a pair of north-south Manhattan avenues

[assumed therefore to be commercial streets] appreciated 57.5 percent in the fiscal year

following conversion to one-way operation.”

12

Converting One-way Streets to Two-way, by John D. Edwards, from Main Street Story of the Week, Main Street America (preservationnation.org), June 2002. 13

Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks?, by G. Wade Walker, Walter M. Kulash, and Brian T. McHugh of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. (Orlando), TRB Circular E-C019, Urban Street Symposium, Dec. 2000, page 5. 14

Traffic Engineering Succeeds in New York City, by Theodore Karagheuzoff, ITE Traffic Engineering, Sep. 1972, page 20.

8

According to a 1998 ITE article15

(referencing a 1995 ITE article), “Johnson reported that

installing a one-way street network in place of a two-way system had no identifiable

effect upon business activity.”

Residential Property Values

In the aforementioned before-and-after study of the 2011 conversion of a 1.25 mile couplet of

two Louisville streets—Brook Street and 1st Street—Riggs and Gilderbloom16

calculated

significant increases in property values for homes selling during 2013:

“The average annual percentage growth rate for 1st Street was 2.78 percent.”

“The average annual percentage growth rate for Brook Street was 38.97 percent.” (Note:

This annual rate appears to be unreliably high.)

Whereas, for an adjacent couplet of streets—2nd

Street and 3rd

Street—that remained one-way,

property values were practically unchanged:

“The average annual percentage growth rate for 2nd

Street was -0.38 percent...”

For 3rd

Street, “The average annual percentage growth rate…was 0.44 percent.”

15

One-Way Streets Provide Superior Safety and Convenience, by John. J. Stemley, ITE Journal, Aug. 1998, page 48. 16

Two-Way Street Conversion: Evidence of Increased Livability in Louisville, by William Riggs and John Gilderbloom, Journal of Planning and Research 1-14, 2015, DOI: 10.1177/0739456X15593147, pages 8 and 9.

9

Freedom

One-way streets, by definition, reduce freedom of movement:

According to a TRB Circular17

, a one-way street system “often forces drivers to follow

out-of-direction routes….”

Parking

Given that low-volume one-way streets need only one travel lane—and two-way streets need at

least two travel lanes—two-way operation would mean less room for parking on narrow streets.

17

Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks?, by G. Wade Walker, Walter M. Kulash, and Brian T. McHugh of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. (Orlando), TRB Circular E-C019, Urban Street Symposium, Dec. 2000, page 3.

10

Safety

Some studies have found safety benefits of converting one-way streets to two-way operation. In

a before-after study of the conversion of Hennepin and 1st Avenues in Minneapolis, the local

department of public works found:

Bicycle crashes declined (12/year before, 0/year after) [Note: Even though “after” period

length was only 6 months, dramatic decline appears significant.]

Total crashes declined 9% [Note: Given 6 months “after” period, 9% is likely not

statistically significant.]18

In a before-and-after conversion study of Brook and 1st Streets in Louisville, researchers found:

Reduction in crashes of 36% and 60%19

on the two streets (respectively) even though

they experienced a 13% and 40% increase in traffic volumes (respectively).20

However, other studies (particularly older ones) found one-way operation to be safer than two-

way. Some found safety benefits from converting two-way streets to one-way. A Transportation

Research Board (TRB) article21

summarized four studies (dated 1938, 1959, 1967, and 1972):

“Most of the [before-and-after] studies report an accident decrease of 20 to 30 percent.”

A 1998 ITE article22

reiterated the findings of a 1959 ITE article:

“…for New York City, Wiley found a 25 percent reduction in intersection pedestrian

accidents at one-way street intersections after conversion from two-way operation.”

A paper by the Center for the American Dream of Mobility and Home Ownership (CAD)23

included the following references to two studies (dated 1950 and 1953, respectively):

“Sacramento found 14 percent fewer accidents on streets converted to one-way

operation…”

“Portland found 51 percent fewer accidents at intersections and 37 percent fewer

between intersections.”

The above CAD paper also found safety disbenefits from converting one-way streets to two-way:

Summary of 1990 Denver study: “Accidents increased an average of 37 percent….”

Summary of 1993 Indianapolis study: “After three years, accidents on that route had

increased 33 percent.”

Summary of 1996 Lubbock TX study: “…25 percent more accidents….”

18

Hennepin Avenue and 1st

Avenue Two-Way Conversion Evaluation Report, Dept. of Public Works, Minneapolis MN, July 2010, pages 14 and 15. 19

Before data: 5 years; after data: first year post-conversion. 20

Two-Way Street Conversion: Evidence of Increased Livability in Louisville, by William Riggs and John Gilderbloom, Journal of Planning and Research 1-14, 2015, DOI: 10.1177/0739456X15593147, pages 6 and 7. 21

Safety of One-Way Urban Streets, by I. Hocherman, A. S. Hakkert, and J. Bar-Ziv, Transportation Research Record 1270, TRB, 1990, page 22. 22

One-Way Streets Provide Superior Safety and Convenience, by John J. Stemley, ITE Journal, August 1998, page 49. 23

No Two Ways About It: One-Way Streets are Better Than Two-Way, by Michael Cunneen and Randal O’Toole, Center for the American Dream of Mobility and Home Ownership, Issue Paper 2-2005, Feb. 2005, pages 6, 8, 9.

11

Travel Time (and Speed)

One of the primary costs of transportation is the amount of time required for a person or piece

of freight to travel from the starting point to the desired location. In a 1998 ITE article, civil

engineer John Stemley re-iterated the findings of two New York City studies (1959 and 1972

ITE articles) showing that one-way streets reduce intersection delay. According to Stemley:

“Use of one-way streets [via the signal progression allowed by one-way operation] is

reported to reduce the number of stops by nearly two-thirds….”

“Intersection delay has been found to be reduced by nearly 50 percent while overall trip

time was reduced by 22 percent to 33 percent.” 24

Given that higher speeds are associated with higher noise and more impactful crashes, it’s

important to note that one-way streets can reduce travel times (via reduction of stops) without

any increase in between-intersection speeds. According to Cunneen and O’Toole, “Two-way

streets suffer more delay and therefore have slower average [emphasis added] speeds than one-

way streets, but not necessarily slower top [emphasis added] speeds.”25

However, after developing and applying a model for comparing one-way networks to two-way

networks, Gayah and Daganzo26

found:

“Contrary to conventional wisdom and design handbooks, one-way networks are not

always more efficient [time-wise] than two-way networks that allow left-turn

movements. When average trip lengths are short, these two-way networks may be

able to serve trips at a higher rate [per unit time] than one-way networks because the

additional circuity in one-way networks offsets the more efficient intersection control.”

24

One-Way Streets Provide Superior Safety and Convenience, by John. J. Stemley, ITE Journal, Aug. 1998, page 50. 25

No Two Ways About It: One-Way Streets are Better Than Two-Way, by Michael Cunneen and Randal O’Toole, Center for the American Dream of Mobility and Home Ownership, Issue Paper 2-2005, Feb. 2005, page 5. 26

Analytical Capacity Comparison of One-Way and Two-Way Signalized Street Networks, by Vikash V. Gayah and Carlos F. Daganzo, Transportation Research Record No. 2301, TRB, Washington DC, 2012, page 84.

12

Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)

One of the stated disbenefits of one-way operation is forced circuitous travel:

According to a TRB article27

, “…one-way networks…require vehicles to travel longer

distances on average.”

According to a TRB circular28

, “Our experience shows that a one-way system usually

yields approximately 120 to 160% of the turning movements when compared to a two-

way system, and the travel distance between portal and destination is usually 20 to 50

percent greater in a one-way street system.”

27

Analytical Capacity Comparison of One-Way and Two-Way Signalized Street Networks, by Vikash V. Gayah and Carlos F. Daganzo, Transportation Research Record No. 2301, TRB, Washington DC, 2012, page 76. 28

Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks?, by G. Wade Walker, Walter M. Kulash, and Brian T. McHugh of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. (Orlando), TRB Circular E-C019, Urban Street Symposium, Dec. 2000, page 9.

13

Conclusions from Review of One-Way/Two-Way Impacts in Literature

Conceptual Structure

Based on the above impacts from the literature—and understanding of transportation causes and

effects—HRTPO staff developed the following chart of impacts and issues.

FIGURE 1 Impacts and Issues of Choice of Operation, One-Way or Two-Way Source: Chart by Shirley.docx

14

Summary and Assessment of Impacts and Issues

The literature reviewed above contains conflicting evidence for converting one-way streets to

two-way:

1. Capacity (and Level-of-Service)

o Some authors wrote that one-ways have higher capacity per lane than two-ways,

yet one author found the opposite.

2. Confusion (of driver)

o Several authors sited the confusion of one-ways. Given that the vast majority of

streets are two-way, this finding seems reasonable.

3. Cost

o Depending on the point-of-view of the author—whether pro-one-way or pro-two-

way—studies estimate conversion costs over a broad range: from $30,000-

$140,000 per intersection, from $100,000-$1,000,000 per mile, and from

$400,000-$1,700,000 per street.

4. Crime

o Studying a couplet of streets converted to two-way operation, the research team

found a 15% and 30% reduction in crime, respectively, for the two streets. More

data is needed for conclusive evidence.

5. Economics

o For commercial streets, some authors wrote that one-way operation is better than

two-way operation, and some authors found the opposite. A study of a couplet of

residential streets converted to two-way operation found significant annual post-

conversion growth in property value. More data is needed to draw a conclusion.

6. Freedom (of movement)

o One-way streets, by definition, reduce freedom of movement.

7. Parking

o Given that low-volume one-way streets need only one travel lane—and two-way

streets need two travel lanes at a minimum—two-way operation would mean less

room for parking on narrow streets.

8. Safety

o Some authors wrote that one-way operation is safer than two-way operation, and

some authors found the opposite.

9. Travel Time (and Speed)

o The literature indicates that one-way streets provide lower trip travel times

(except for short trips), but—due to fewer stops—not necessarily higher between-

intersection speeds.

10. Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)

o One-way streets, by definition, require some circuitous travel, raising VMT.

15

According to the above literature review, although findings on capacity, cost, commercial values,

and safety are mixed, and findings on crime and residential values are inconclusive:

one-way streets (by definition) provide more room for parking, and usually supply

lower trip travel times, whereas

two-way streets (by definition) provide less confusion, more freedom, and lower

VMT.

16

Methods of Identifying One-way Streets for Conversion

The literature includes varied methods—from simple to complex—for identifying one-way

streets that are good candidates for conversion to two-way.

Pavement Width

Converting streets from one-way to two-way operation using the existing pavement width

requires enough pavement for a minimum of two lanes (one in each direction) plus parking as

desired.

The main source of recommended widths is A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and

Streets29

known as “the AASHTO green book” which “provides guidance based on established

practices that are supplemented by recent research.”

Lane Width

According to the AASHTO green book:

“Lane widths of…9 to 12 ft are generally used….” (page 4-7)

“In urban areas where pedestrian crossings, right-of-way, or existing development

become stringent controls on lane widths, the use of…11-ft lanes may be appropriate.

Lanes…10 ft wide are acceptable on low-speed facilities, and lanes…9 ft wide may be

appropriate on low-volume roads in rural and residential areas.” (pages 4-7, 4-8)

In addition, given that left-turners on two-way streets must deal with on-coming traffic,

according to an article on the subject:

“Streets less than 22 feet wide are not good candidates for two-way operations; left-turn

movements will cause congestion.”30

29

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2011 (6th

Edition). 30

Converting One-way Streets to Two-way, by John D. Edwards, from Main Street Story of the Week, Main Street America (preservationnation.org), June 2002.

17

Parking Width

According to the AASHTO green book:

“Curb parking on urban arterial streets is acceptable when the available through-traffic

lanes can reasonably accommodate traffic demand.” (page 4-73)

“…the desirable minimum width of a parking lane is…8 ft.” (page 4-73)

“The desirable parking lane width on urban collectors is…8 ft to accommodate a wide

variety of traffic operations and land uses.” (page 4-73)

“On urban collector streets within residential neighborhoods…7 ft parking lanes

have been successfully used. In fact, a total width of…36 ft, consisting of two travel

lanes of…11 ft [totaling 22 ft] and parking lanes of…7 ft [totaling 14 ft], is frequently

used.” (page 4-73)

“A…26-ft wide roadway is the typical cross section used in many urban residential

areas. This width assures one through lane even where parking occurs on both sides.”

“Random intermittent parking on both sides of the street usually results in areas where

two-way movement can be accommodated.” (page 4-74)

Traffic- Rule of Thumb

Some analysts use traffic rules-of-thumb to judge the merits of conversion. Given the

conventional wisdom of one-way operation rendering higher capacity than two-way operation,

one-way streets with large traffic volumes may not be good candidates for conversion.

According to an article for Main Street America (MSA)31

:

“If traffic volumes exceed 15,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on each of the one-way streets

and if there are numerous cross streets with no suitable parallel or bypass routes, the

conversion to two-way may increase congestion to unacceptable levels….”

Traffic- modeling

Other analysts use off-the-shelf simulation models to judge the merits of conversion.

Consultants Walker, Kulash, and McHugh note that one can run TRAF-NETSIM software for

each subject scenario (one-way, two-way) to calculate system VMT and delay for each, and

then use those results to compare the two scenarios.32

ENTRAN used TransModeler software to

31

Converting One-way Streets to Two-way, by John D. Edwards, from Main Street Story of the Week, Main Street America (preservationnation.org), June 2002. 32

Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks?, by G. Wade Walker, Walter M. Kulash, and Brian T. McHugh of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. (Orlando), TRB Circular E-C019, Urban Street Symposium, Dec. 2000, page 9.

18

estimate the “traffic impacts associated with converting one-way streets in the downtown

[Louisville] system to two-way traffic.”33

Still other researchers have developed complex models for comparing the capacity of one-way

networks to two-way networks. Gayah and Daganzo34

propose measuring the relative trip-

serving capacity of each network (Ci) in this manner:

Chiu, Zhou, and Hernandez35

propose using “multiple resolution simulation and assignment”

(MRSA) approach for “estimating the traffic impact” of conversions. MRSA “entails a logical

integration of two traffic simulation assignment methods with different traffic simulation

resolutions and traffic assignment capabilities, as well as one origin-destination (OD) demand

estimation procedure.”

Finally, Zargari and Taromi36

propose using genetic algorithms to optimize the configuration of

one-way and two-way streets in a network based on minimizing the total travel time for all

users.

33

Downtown Louisville Two-Way Street Study, by ENTRAN, for Downtown Development Corporation, Oct. 2009, pages 1 and 3. 34

Analytical Capacity Comparison of One-Way and Two-Way Signalized Street Networks, by Vikash V. Gayah and Carlos F. Daganzo, Transportation Research Record No. 2301, TRB, Washington DC, 2012, page 77. 35

Evaluating Urban Downtown One-Way to Two-Way Street Conversion Using Multiple Resolution Simulation and Assignment Approach, by Yi-Chang Chiu, Xuesong Zhou, and Jessica Hernandez, in Journal of Urban Planning and Development (ASCE), Dec. 2007, page 223. 36

Selecting an Optimum Configuration of Urban One-Way and Two-Way Streets Using Genetic Algorithms, by Shahriar Afandizadeh Zargari and Reza Taromi, in International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Sept. 2006), page 244.

19

Conclusion from Literature Review

Given the above literature review, although one-way streets usually supply lower trip travel

times, it appears reasonable for the cities of Hampton Roads to pursue less confusion, more

freedom, and lower VMT by converting one-way streets to two-way operation where

reasonable traffic volume and adequate pavement width exists.

20

ONE-WAY CANDIDATES FOR TWO-WAY OPERATION IN HAMPTON ROADS

Method Used in This Study to Identify Candidates for Two-way Operation

Based on the above literature review, HRTPO staff identified one-way street candidates for two-

way operation by executing the following steps:

First, HRTPO staff identified the existing one-way streets in Hampton Roads:

Started with a search of Google Maps

Examined VDOT data indicating one-way vs. two-way operation, ignoring adjacent pairs

(of interstates and arterials with medians), ramps, circles, and forked terminals.

Finalized list using Google Maps’ street view (e.g. one-way signage, direction signs

facing, etc.)

HRTPO staff mapped the resulting one-way street segments (approx. 170) on the following

pages, and listed them in a four-page table in a following section.

21

FIGURE 2 One-Way Streets in Chesapeake Source: one-way.mxd

All of the one-way streets found in Chesapeake are located in South Norfolk.

22

FIGURE 3 One-Way Streets in Hampton Source: one-way.mxd

All of the one-way streets found in Hampton are located in Meadow Brook.

23

FIGURE 4 One-Way Streets in Newport News Source: one-way.mxd

The one-way streets found in Newport News are in the East End and Downtown/NNS37

areas.

37

Newport News Shipbuilding

24

FIGURE 5 One-Way Streets in Norfolk Source: one-way.mxd

Although concentrated in certain neighborhoods, Norfolk’s one-way streets can be found in

many different neighborhoods.

25

FIGURE 6 One-Way Streets in Portsmouth Source: one-way.mxd

The one-way streets found in Portsmouth are in the eastern part of the city, Downtown and in

Effingham Plaza near the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

26

FIGURE 7 One-Way Streets in Suffolk Source: one-way.mxd

All of the one-way streets found in Suffolk are in the Downtown area.

27

FIGURE 8 One-Way Streets in Virginia Beach Source: one-way.mxd

Both of the one-way streets found in Virginia Beach are at the oceanfront.

28

FIGURE 9 One-Way Streets in Williamsburg Source: one-way.mxd

The only one-way street found in Williamsburg (Boundary Street, between Richmond Road and

Prince George Street) is near the Historic Area.

29

Secondly (i.e. following the above first step of locating the set of one-way streets), HRTPO staff

applied the following criteria—based in part on the above review of literature—to that set to

identify candidates for two-way operation:

Lacking fatal flaw (e.g. serving as on-ramp)

Lacking excessive traffic volume (<15k vpd)

Having pavement width adequate to serve two lanes (one in ea. dir.) plus existing parking

HRTPO staff considered the following to have pavement width adequate for being a candidate

for two-way operation:

Streets with 2 or more existing (one-way) lanes

Streets with 1 existing (one-way) lane but with adequate existing pavement width (based

on table below)

TABLE XX Minimum Pavement Width for Consideration as Candidate for Two-Way

Operation (one lane in each direction) Source: pavement width.xlsx

Roadway Functional Class

Local Collector Arterial

Parking

lanes,

ft

parking,

ft

total,

ft

foot-

note

lanes,

ft

parking,

ft

total,

ft

foot-

note

lanes,

ft

parking,

ft

total,

ft

foot-

note

None 9'x2 0 18 (1) 10'x2 0 20 (1) 11'x2 0 22 (2)

On One Side 9'x2 7 25 (1) 10'x2 8 28 (1) 11'x2 10 32 (1)

On Both Sides 9'x2 7'x2 32 (1) 10'x2 8'x2 36 (3) 11'x2 10'x2 42 (1)

Table Footnotes

(1) Calculations by HRTPO staff based on AASHTO and Edwards documents (below).

(2) Converting One-way Streets to Two-way, by John D. Edwards, Main Street Story of the Week,

Main Street America, June 2002.

(3) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets , AASHTO, 2011, pg. 4-73.

30

FIGURE 10 Method of Identifying Candidates for Two-way Operation Source: Flowchart by Shirley.docx

Candidates for Two-Way Operation

Execution of the above steps resulted in a table of one-way streets with identification of

candidates for two-way operation.

TABLE 1 One-way Streets and Candidates for Two-way Operation Source: one-way.xlsx

[table shown on following pages]

City

Neigh

borhoo

dFacility Nam

eFrom

 (dire

ctiona

lly)

To (d

irectiona

lly)

"Fatal Flaw"

Traffic

 Vo

lume 

>15k

 vp

d?

Func‐

tiona

l Class

2+ Lan

es 

Existin

g?

Pavemen

t Width‐ 

inclg 

gutter, ft 

(based

 on 

Goo

gle 

Maps)

Parking 

(existing)

Minim

um 

Pavemen

t Width, ft 

(for o

ne 

lane

 each 

direction; 

based on

 class a

nd 

parking)

Cand

idate? 

(based

 on fatal 

flaw, vpd

, # of e

x. 

lane

s, pave. 

width)

Chesap

eake

South Norfolk

18th Street

B Street

D Street

n.a.

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Chesap

eake

South Norfolk

22nd

 Street

B Street

Rodgers S

treet

n.a.

noLocal

no27

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Chesap

eake

South Norfolk

B Street

22nd

 Street

16th Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Chesap

eake

South Norfolk

Phillips Street

Poinde

xter Street

Seab

oard Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no20

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Chesap

eake

South Norfolk

Rodgers Street

Grady

 Street

Poinde

xter Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Ham

pton

Meado

w Brook

Armstrong

 Driv

eStratford Ro

adRo

ads V

iew Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Ham

pton

Meado

w Brook

Barksdale Ro

adArmstrong

 Driv

eRo

ads V

iew Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Ham

pton

Meado

w Brook

Burns Street

Van Patten

 Driv

eStratford Ro

adn.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Ham

pton

Meado

w Brook

Clyde Street

Road

s View Avenu

eStratford Ro

adn.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Ham

pton

Meado

w Brook

Road

s View

 Avenu

eArmstrong

 Driv

eClyde Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Ham

pton

Meado

w Brook

Van Pa

tten

 Driv

eArmstrong

 Driv

eClyde Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

New

port New

sEast End

25th Street

Jeffe

rson

 Avenu

e26th Street

n.a.

noCo

llector

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s36

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sEast End

26th Street

Jeffe

rson

 Avenu

e25th Street

n.a.

noCo

llector

yes

2 lane

sOne

 side

28yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sEast End

27th Street

Jeffe

rson

 Avenu

e28th Street

n.a.

noCo

llector

yes

2 lane

sOne

 side

28yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sEast End

28th Street

27th Street

Jeffe

rson

 Avenu

en.a.

noCo

llector

yes

2 lane

sOne

 side

28yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)Ne w

port New

sEast End

35th Street

Jeffe

rson

 Avenu

eMarshall A

venu

en.a.

noArteria

lyes

2 lane

sOne

 side

32yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n23rd Street

Huntington

 Avenu

eWarwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noCo

llector

no18

Non

e20

no (p

ave. width)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n26th Street

Huntington

 Avenu

eWest A

venu

en.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s32

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n29th Street

West A

venu

eWarwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s32

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n30th Street

Warwick Bo

ulevard

West A

venu

en.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s32

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s )New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n32nd

 Street

Washington Av

enue

Warwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s32

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n33rd Street

Warwick Bo

ulevard

Washington Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s32

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n34th Street

West A

venu

eWarwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noCo

llector

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s36

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n35th Street

Warwick Bo

ulevard

West A

venu

eI‐6

64 ra

mp

noCo

llector

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s36

no (fatal flaw

)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n36th Street

Wa shington Av

enue

Warwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noLocal

no30

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n37th Street

Warwick Bo

ulevard

Washington Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s32

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n38th Street

Washington Av

enue

Warwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s32

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n41st Street

Washington Av

enue

Huntington

 Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no30

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n42nd

 Street

Warwick Bo

ulevard

Huntington

 Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no30

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n42nd

 Street

Huntington

 Avenu

eWashington Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sOne

 side

25yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n43rd Street

Washington Av

enue

Warwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sOne

 side

25yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n44th Street

Warwick Bo

ulevard

Washington Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no30

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n45th Street

Washington Av

enue

Warwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noLocal

no30

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n46th Street

Huntington

 Avenu

eWashington Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no30

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n47th Street

Washington Av

enue

Huntington

 Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no30

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n47th Street

Huntington

 Avenu

eWarwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sOne

 side

25yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n48th Street

Warwick Bo

ulevard

Washington Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no30

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n49th Street

Washington Av

enue

Warwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noCo

llector

yes

2 lane

sOne

 side

28yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n50th Street

Warwick Bo

ulevard

Huntington

 Avenu

en.a.

noCo

llector

no30

Both side

s36

no (p

ave. width)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n50th Street

Huntington

 Avenu

eWashington Av

enue

n.a.

noCo

llector

yes

2 lane

sBo

th side

s36

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

n51st Street

Huntington

 Avenu

eWarwick Bo

ulevard

n.a.

noLocal

no30

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

nHun

tington

 Avenu

eWarwick Bo

ulevard

23rd Street

NNS surge

noArteria

lyes

3 lane

sOne

 side

32no

 (fatal flaw

)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

nWarwick Bo

ulevard

23rd Street

Huntington

 Avenu

eNNS surge

noArteria

lyes

3 lane

sOne

 side

32no

 (fatal flaw

)New

port New

sNNS/Dow

ntow

nWashington Av

enue

50th Street

49th Street

n.a.

noCo

llector

yes

2 lane

sOne

 side

28yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)

31

City

Neigh

borhoo

dFacility Nam

eFrom

 (dire

ctiona

lly)

To (d

irectiona

lly)

"Fatal Flaw"

Traffic

 Vo

lume 

>15k

 vp

d?

Func‐

tiona

l Class

2+ Lan

es 

Existin

g?

Pavemen

t Width‐ 

inclg 

gutter, ft 

(based

 on 

Goo

gle 

Maps)

Parking 

(existing)

Minim

um 

Pavemen

t Width, ft 

(for o

ne 

lane

 each 

direction; 

based on

 class a

nd 

parking)

Cand

idate? 

(based

 on fatal 

flaw, vpd

, # of e

x. 

lane

s, pave. 

width)

Norfolk

Bay View

Alfred

 Lan

eSturgis S

treet

Willow

 Terrace

n.a.

noLocal

no10

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Bay View

Elk Av

enue

Bi‐Cou

nty Ro

adBu

ffalo Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Campo

stella

Oakwoo

d Street

Canton

 Avenu

eIndian

 River Roa

dcut‐thru

noLocal

no30

One

 side

25no

 (fatal flaw

)Norfolk

Chesterfield Heights

Forbes Street

Kimba

ll Terrace

Westm

inster Avenu

ecut‐thru

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (fatal flaw

)Norfolk

Colonial Place

Delaw

are Av

enue

New

port Avenu

eCo

lonial Avenu

en.a.

noCo

llector

no24

One

 side

28no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Colonial Place

LLew

ellyn Av

enue

Granb

y Street

Conn

ecticut Avenu

eGranb

y ramp

noArteria

lyes

2 lane

sNon

e22

no (fatal flaw

)Norfolk

Colonial Place

LLew

ellyn Av

enue

Conn

ecticut Avenu

eDe

laware Av

enue

n.a.

noArteria

lyes

2 lane

sNon

e22

yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)Norfolk

Diggs Tow

nGoo

dman

 Street

Vernon

 Driv

eMelon

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Diggs Tow

nGreen

leaft D

rive

Vine

 Street

Cypress S

treet

n.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Diggs Tow

nTh

urgood

 Street

Melon

 Street

Vernon

 Driv

en.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nBroo

ke Avenu

eGranb

y Street

Boush Street

n.a.

noLocal

no30

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nBu

te Street

Granb

y Street

Charlotte Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nCh

arlotte Street

Bute Street

Granb

y Street

n.a.

noLocal

no40

Non

e18

yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nCh

arlotte Street

Granb

y Street

Mon

ticello Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no28

Non

e18

yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nCo

llege Place

Granb

y Street

Boush Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nMagazine Lane

Olney Roa

dBram

bleton

 Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nMarket S

treet

Mon

ticello Avenu

eGranb

y Street

n.a.

noLocal

no27

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nRa

ndolph

 Street

City Hall A

venu

ePlum

e Street

n.a.

noLocal

no25

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nTazewell Street

Boush Street

Mon

ticello Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Dow

ntow

nVo

ss Street

Olney Roa

dBram

bleton

 Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

East Beach

Coventry Lan

e27th Bay Street

East Beach Driv

en.a.

noLocal

no19

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

East Beach

East Beach Driv

eCo

ventry Lan

e28th Bay Street

n.a.

noLocal

no19

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

East Beach

Ham

mock Lane

29th Bay Street

24th Bay Street

n.a.

noLocal

no19

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

East Beach

Maide

n Lane

25th Bay Street

26th Bay Street

n.a.

noLocal

no19

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

East Ocean

 View

9th Ba

y Street

Pretty Lake Av

enue

Pleasant Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no20

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Freemason

Dun

more Street

York Street

College Place

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Freemason

Yarm

outh Street

Bram

bleton

 Avenu

eGrace Street

n.a.

noLocal

no25

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Freemason

York Street

Botetourt S

treet

Dunm

ore Street

n.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Freemason

York Street

Duke Street

Boush Street

n.a.

noLocal

no25

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Norfolk

Freemason

York/Yarmou

th Streets

Duke Street

Bram

bleton

 Avenu

ecut‐thru

noLocal

no19

One

 side

25no

 (fatal flaw

)Norfolk

Ghe

ntBa

ldwin Avenu

eHa

mpton

 Bou

levard

Stockley Garde

nsn.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ghe

ntBran

don Av

enue

Colley Av

enue

Hampton

 Bou

levard

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ghe

ntGates Avenu

eHa

mpton

 Bou

levard

Colley Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ghe

ntHarrin

gton

 Avenu

eCo

lley Av

enue

Hampton

 Bou

levard

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ghe

ntMau

ry Avenu

eStockley Garde

nsHa

mpton

 Bou

levard

n.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ghe

ntOlney Roa

dCh

ildren's L

ane

Fairfax Avenu

eho

spita

l drop

noLocal

yes

2 lane

sNon

e18

no (fatal flaw

)Norfolk

Ghe

ntShirley Avenu

eDe

 Bree Av

enue

Hampton

 Bou

levard

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ghe

ntSpotsw

ood Av

enue

Hampton

 Bou

levard

De Bree Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Hun

tersville

A Av

enue

Sutton

 Street

Church Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Hun

tersville

B Av

enue

Church Street

Sutton

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Hun

tersville

C Av

enue

Sutton

 Street

Church Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Hun

tersville

Frem

ont S

treet

Church Street

Sutton

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Hun

tersville

John

son Av

enue

Proe

sche

r Street

Church Street

n.a.

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Hun

tersville

Lexington Street

Dungee

 Street

Church Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

32

City

Neigh

borhoo

dFacility Nam

eFrom

 (dire

ctiona

lly)

To (d

irectiona

lly)

"Fatal Flaw"

Traffic

 Vo

lume 

>15k

 vp

d?

Func‐

tiona

l Class

2+ Lan

es 

Existin

g?

Pavemen

t Width‐ 

inclg 

gutter, ft 

(based

 on 

Goo

gle 

Maps)

Parking 

(existing)

Minim

um 

Pavemen

t Width, ft 

(for o

ne 

lane

 each 

direction; 

based on

 class a

nd 

parking)

Cand

idate? 

(based

 on fatal 

flaw, vpd

, # of e

x. 

lane

s, pave. 

width)

Norfolk

Hun

tersville

Washington Av

enue

Church Street

Chap

el Street

n.a.

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Ingleside

Peake Ro

adEthe

ridge Avenu

eIngleside Ro

adn.a.

noLocal

no12

Non

e18

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Larchm

ont

Surrey Crescen

tHa

mpton

 Bou

levard

Jamestown Crescent

cut‐thru

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (fatal flaw

)Norfolk

Leno

xBa

y Av

enue

I‐64 Ra

mp

Granb

y Street

n.a.

noCo

llector

no26

One

 side

28no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Leno

xBa

y Av

enue

Granb

y Street

Tide

water Driv

en.a.

noLocal

no26

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Norfolk

Leno

xLorengo Av

enue

Dudley Avenu

eGranb

y Street

n.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Leno

xOcean

 Avenu

eTide

water Driv

eI‐6

4 Ra

mp

n.a.

noLocal

no26

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Norfolk

Leno

xRa

ndall A

venu

eGranb

y Street

Dudley Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Merrim

ac Park

Albe

marle Driv

eMon

itor W

ayBa

y Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no19

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Merrim

ac Park

Nipsic Lane

Albe

marle Driv

eAlbe

marle Driv

en.a.

noLocal

no10

Non

e18

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Norfolk State

Map

ole Av

enue

Princess Ann

e Ro

adDu

bose Driv

en.a.

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Norfolk State

Map

ole Av

enue

Corprew Avenu

eVirginia Beach Bou

levard

n.a.

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Norfolk State

Presiden

tial P

arkw

ayDick Price Stad

ium

Corprew Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no24

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

North Sho

reClau

d Lane

Shirlan

d Av

enue

Hampton

 Bou

levard

n.a.

noLocal

no11

Non

e18

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

North Sho

reHelen

a Av

enue

Shirlan

d Av

enue

Hampton

 Bou

levard

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

North Sho

rePa

sade

na Cou

rtHa

mpton

 Bou

levard

Shirlan

d Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

North Sho

reShirlan

d Av

enue

Little Creek Roa

dTrou

ville Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

North Sho

reTrou

ville

 Avenu

eShirlan

d Av

enue

Hampton

 Bou

lev ard

n.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Ocean

 View

A View

 Avenu

eMason

 Creek Roa

d1st V

iew Street

n.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ocean

 View

Cherry Street

Granb

y Street

1st V

iew Street

n.a.

noLocal

no30

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ocean

 View

D View Avenu

e1st V

iew Street

Granb

y Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ocean

 View

Duffys Lane

Portview

 Avenu

eA View

 Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no21

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ocean

 View

Governm

ent S

treet

Granb

y Street

1st V

iew Street

n.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Ocean

 View

Granb

y Street

A View

 Avenu

eDu

ffys L

ane

n.a.

noLocal

no30

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Norfolk

Ocean

 View

Seaview Avenu

eGranb

y Street

1st V

iew Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

26th Street

Hampton

 Bou

levard

27th Street

n.a.

noArteria

lyes

2 lane

sOne

 side

32yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)Norfolk

Park Place

27th Street

26th Street

Hampton

 Bou

levard

n.a.

noArteria

lyes

2 lane

sOne

 side

32yes (2+

 ex. lane

s)Norfolk

Park Place

28th Street

Colley Av

enue

Mon

ticello Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

29th Street

Mon

ticello Avenu

eGranb

y Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

29th Street

Omoh

undro Av

enue

31st Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

30th Street

Colonial Avenu

eGranb

y Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

31st Street

Gosno

ld Avenu

eCo

lley Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

31st Street

Granb

y Street

Colonial Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no2 4

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

32nd

 Street

33rd Street

Omoh

undro Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

33rd Street

Granb

y Street

32nd

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

34th Street

Colley Av

enue

Granb

y Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

36th Street

Colley Av

enue

Colonial Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

37th Street

Colonial Avenu

eCo

lley Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

Fawn Street

27th Street

23rd Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

Gazel Street

27th Street

26th Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

Gazel Street

Rugby Street

26th Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

Geo

rgia Avenu

eNew

port Avenu

e38th Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

Michigan Av

enue

Gosno

ld Avenu

eCo

lley Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Park Place

Michigan Av

enue

Gosno

ld Avenu

e38th Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

33

City

Neigh

borhoo

dFacility Nam

eFrom

 (dire

ctiona

lly)

To (d

irectiona

lly)

"Fatal Flaw"

Traffic

 Vo

lume 

>15k

 vp

d?

Func‐

tiona

l Class

2+ Lan

es 

Existin

g?

Pavemen

t Width‐ 

inclg 

gutter, ft 

(based

 on 

Goo

gle 

Maps)

Parking 

(existing)

Minim

um 

Pavemen

t Width, ft 

(for o

ne 

lane

 each 

direction; 

based on

 class a

nd 

parking)

Cand

idate? 

(based

 on fatal 

flaw, vpd

, # of e

x. 

lane

s, pave. 

width)

Norfolk

Tide

water Garde

nsCh

apel Street

Charlotte Street

Mariner Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Tide

water Garde

nsHolt S

treet

Reilly Street

Chap

el Street

n.a.

noLocal

no10

Non

e18

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Tide

water Garde

nsMariner Street

Holt Street (m

id‐block)

Holt Street (e

nd‐block)

n.a.

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Tide

water Garde

nsMariner Street

Holt Street (e

nd‐block)

Walke Street

n.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Tide

water Garde

nsRe

illy Street

Mariner Street

Virgin Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Tide

water Garde

nsVirgin Street

Holt Street

Chap

el Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Norfolk

Wards Corne

rKe

nmore Driv

eVirginian Drive

Virginian Drive

n.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Wards Corne

rWilb

y Street

Warren Street

Marcy Street

n.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

West G

hent

Clarem

ont A

venu

eRe

dgate Av

enue

Hampton

 Bou

levard

n.a.

noCo

llector

no26

Both side

s36

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

West G

hent

Graydon

 Place

Weyan

oke Street

Old Brand

on Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

West G

hent

Graydon

 Place

Old Brand

on Avenu

eWeyan

oke Street

n.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Norfolk

Willou

ghby

Han

sford Place

Little Bay Avenu

eOcean

 View Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no20

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Portsm

outh

Olde To

wne

Glasgow

 Street

Middle Street

Craw

ford Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Portsm

outh

Olde To

wne

King

 Street

library cut‐thru

Effin

gham

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Portsm

outh

Olde To

wne

King

 Street

Chestnut Street

Effin

gham

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

Non

e18

yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Portsm

outh

Olde To

wne

King

 Street

God

win Street

Peninsula Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Por tsm

outh

Olde To

wne

King

 Street

Phoe

bus S

treet

Elm Avenu

en.a.

noLocal

no24

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Portsm

outh

Olde To

wne

Middle Street

North Street

Glasgow

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no30

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Portsm

outh

Olde To

wne

Middle Street

Lond

on Street

Glasgow

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no30

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Portsm

outh

Olde To

wne

Que

en Street

Peninsula Av

enue

Effin

gham

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Portsm

outh

Olde To

wne

Que

en Street

Effin

gham

 Street

Craw

ford Street

n.a.

noLocal

no20

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Portsm

outh

Shea

 Terrace

North Street

Sand

pipe

r Driv

eCo

nstitution Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no1 6

Non

e18

no (p

ave. width)

Portsm

outh

Shea

 Terrace

North Street

Chesap

eake Avenu

eCo

nstitution Av

enue

n.a.

noLocal

no22

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Portsm

outh

Shipyard

5th Street

Edwards Street

Mad

ison Street

n.a.

noLocal

no36

One

 side

25yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Portsm

outh

Shipyard

5th Street

Mad

ison Street

Portsm

outh Bou

levard

n.a.

noLocal

no36

Both side

s32

yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Portsm

outh

Shipyard

6th Street

Portsm

outh Bou

levard

Mad

ison Street

n.a.

noLocal

no36

Both side

s32

yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Portsm

outh

Shipyard

Mad

ison

 Street

Port Cen

ter P

arkw

ay7th Street

n.a.

noLocal

no36

Both side

s32

yes (pa

ve. w

idth)

Suffolk

Dow

ntow

nClay Street

Finn

ey Avenu

eMarket S

treet

n.a.

noLocal

no18

Both side

s32

no (p

a ve. width)

Suffolk

Dow

ntow

nClay Street

Market S

treet

Washington Street

n.a.

noLocal

no19

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Suffolk

Dow

ntow

nNorth Street

Market S

treet

Washington Street

n.a.

noLocal

no19

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Suffolk

Dow

ntow

nPe

nder Street

Washington Street

Sprin

g Street

n.a.

noLocal

no16

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

Suffolk

Dow

ntow

nPine

 Street

Washington Street

Market S

treet

n.a.

noLocal

no18

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

Suffolk

Dow

ntow

nPinn

er Street

Bank

 Street

Finn

ey Avenu

ecut‐thru

noCo

llector

no27

One

 side

28no

 (fatal flaw

)Suffolk

Dow

ntow

nSaratoga Street

Market S

treet

Freemason

 Street

n.a.

noLocal

no24

One

 side

25no

 (pave. width)

V irginia Beach

Ocean

fron

t21st Street

Parks A

venu

eAtlantic Avenu

efrom

 I‐264

noArteria

lyes

2‐4 lane

sBo

th side

s42

no (fatal flaw

)Virginia Beach

Ocean

fron

t22nd

 Street

Atlantic Avenu

eParks A

venu

eto I‐264

noArteria

lyes

2‐4 lane

sBo

th side

s42

no (fatal flaw

)Williamsburg

Dow

ntow

nBo

unda

ry Street

Richmon

d Ro

adPrince Geo

rge Street

n.a.

noLocal

no26

Both side

s32

no (p

ave. width)

34

35

Findings

Execution of the HRTPO staff methodology resulted in approximately 40 of the region’s one-

way streets—all in Newport News, Norfolk, and Portsmouth—being identified as candidates for

two-way operation, representing almost one-fourth of the existing one-way segments, as shown

below.

TABLE 2 One-way Streets Meeting Criteria for Candidates for Two-way Operation Source: one-way.xlsx

City Neighborhood Facility Name From (directionally) To (directionally)Newport News East End 25th Street Jefferson Avenue 26th Street

Newport News East End 26th Street Jefferson Avenue 25th Street

Newport News East End 27th Street Jefferson Avenue 28th Street

Newport News East End 28th Street 27th Street Jefferson Avenue

Newport News East End 35th Street Jefferson Avenue Marshall Avenue

Newport News NNS/Downtown 26th Street Huntington Avenue West Avenue

Newport News NNS/Downtown 29th Street West Avenue Warwick Boulevard

Newport News NNS/Downtown 30th Street Warwick Boulevard West Avenue

Newport News NNS/Downtown 32nd Street Washington Avenue Warwick Boulevard

Newport News NNS/Downtown 33rd Street Warwick Boulevard Washington Avenue

Newport News NNS/Downtown 34th Street West Avenue Warwick Boulevard

Newport News NNS/Downtown 37th Street Warwick Boulevard Washington Avenue

Newport News NNS/Downtown 38th Street Washington Avenue Warwick Boulevard

Newport News NNS/Downtown 42nd Street Huntington Avenue Washington Avenue

Newport News NNS/Downtown 43rd Street Washington Avenue Warwick Boulevard

Newport News NNS/Downtown 44th Street Warwick Boulevard Washington Avenue

Newport News NNS/Downtown 45th Street Washington Avenue Warwick Boulevard

Newport News NNS/Downtown 46th Street Huntington Avenue Washington Avenue

Newport News NNS/Downtown 47th Street Huntington Avenue Warwick Boulevard

Newport News NNS/Downtown 49th Street Washington Avenue Warwick Boulevard

Newport News NNS/Downtown 50th Street Huntington Avenue Washington Avenue

Newport News NNS/Downtown 51st Street Huntington Avenue Warwick Boulevard

Newport News NNS/Downtown Washington Avenue 50th Street 49th Street

Norfolk Colonial Place LLewellyn Avenue Connecticut Avenue Delaware Avenue

Norfolk Downtown Charlotte Street Bute Street Granby Street

Norfolk Downtown Charlotte Street Granby Street Monticello Avenue

Norfolk Downtown Market Street Monticello Avenue Granby Street

Norfolk Downtown Randolph Street City Hall Avenue Plume Street

Norfolk Freemason York Street Duke Street Boush Street

Norfolk Lenox Bay Avenue Granby Street Tidewater Drive

Norfolk Lenox Ocean Avenue Tidewater Drive I-64 Ramp

Norfolk Ocean View Granby Street A View Avenue Duffys Lane

Norfolk Park Place 26th Street Hampton Boulevard 27th Street

Norfolk Park Place 27th Street 26th Street Hampton Boulevard

Portsmouth Olde Towne King Street Chestnut Street Effingham Street

Portsmouth Shipyard 5th Street Edwards Street Madison Street

Portsmouth Shipyard 5th Street Madison Street Portsmouth Boulevard

Portsmouth Shipyard 6th Street Portsmouth Boulevard Madison Street

Portsmouth Shipyard Madison Street Port Center Parkway 7th Street

36

FIGURE 11 One-Way Street Candidates for Two-Way Operation in Newport News Source: one-way.mxd

In Newport News, HRTPO staff found several candidates for two-way operation in the East End

and NNS/Downtown areas.

37

FIGURE 12 One-Way Street Candidates for Two-Way Operation in Portsmouth Source: one-way.mxd

In Portsmouth, HRTPO staff found several candidates for two-way operation in Effingham Plaza

(near Norfolk Naval Shipyard) but only one block downtown (King Street, between Chestnut and

Effingham Streets).

38

FIGURE 13 One-Way Street Candidates for Two-Way Operation in Downtown Norfolk Source: one-way.mxd

The HRTPO methodology revealed four two-way candidates downtown:

York Street

Charlotte Street

Market Street

Randolph Street

39

FIGURE 14 One-Way Street Candidates for Two-Way Operation in Central Norfolk Source: one-way.mxd

The HRTPO methodology revealed three two-way candidates in central Norfolk:

Llewellyn Street

26th

Street

27th

Street

40

FIGURE 15 One-Way Street Candidates for Two-Way Operation in Northern Norfolk Source: one-way.mxd

The HRTPO methodology revealed three two-way candidates in northern Norfolk:

A short segment of Granby Street at Ocean View

Ocean Avenue

Bay Avenue38

Caveat

HRTPO staff provides the above identification of candidates for two-way operation as a starting

point for discussion with traffic engineering and other applicable stakeholders. For example,

given the path of light rail in Norfolk, conversion of Charlotte Street (between Bute Street and

Monticello Avenue) to two-way operation would require coordination with HRT.

38

Note: The portion of Bay Avenue from I-64 to Granby Street is considered a Collector and therefore did not pass the width test for two-way operation (see database above).

41

Focal Areas

Although limited, as discussed above in the literature review, some researchers have found that

one-way conversions to two-way operation have resulted in higher home values and lower crime.

Consequently, HRTPO staff added home values and crime statistics to the candidate maps to

determine those neighborhoods in greatest need of improvement.

Crime Statistics

Of the three cities with candidates for two-way operation, Newport News provided crime

geography, as shown below.

FIGURE 16 Two-Way Operation Candidates and 2016 Crime in Newport News Source: one-way.mxd

25th

, 26th

, 27th

, 28th

, and 35th

streets appear to have more crime than the two-way candidates west

of Warwick Blvd.

42

Home Value Statistics

HRTPO staff extracted home values by block group39

from the 2015 US Census.

FIGURE 17 Two-Way Operation Candidates and Homes Valued Less than $100,000

(2015) in Newport News Source: one-way.mxd

25th

, 26th

, 27th

, and 28th

streets appear to have more homes valued below $100,000 than the two-

way candidates west of Warwick Blvd.

39

Note that the mapping software randomly distributes the applicable dots across the area of the subject block group. Therefore, the home locations shown are approximate.

43

FIGURE 18 Two-Way Operation Candidates and Homes Valued Less than $100,000

(2015) in Portsmouth Source: one-way.mxd

None of the two-way candidate streets in Portsmouth appear to have many homes valued below

$100,000.

44

FIGURE 19 Two-Way Operation Candidates and Homes Valued Less than $100,000

(2015) in Downtown Norfolk Source: one-way.mxd

None of the two-way candidate streets in downtown Norfolk appear to have many homes valued

below $100,000.40

40

The housing data being tallied per block group, i.e. exact location unknown, the mapping software randomly spreads the dots across each block group.

45

FIGURE 20 Two-Way Operation Candidates and Homes Valued Less than $100,000

(2015) in Central Norfolk Source: one-way.mxd

26th

and 27th

Streets appear to have a moderate number of homes valued below $100,000.

46

FIGURE 21 Two-Way Operation Candidates and Homes Valued Less than $100,000

(2015) in Northern Norfolk Source: one-way.mxd

Ocean and Bay Avenues appear to have a few homes valued below $100,000.

47

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

Given the literature reviewed above, although one-way streets usually supply lower trip travel

times, it appears reasonable for the cities of Hampton Roads to pursue less confusion, more

freedom, and lower VMT by converting one-way streets to two-way operation where

reasonable traffic volume and adequate pavement width exists. Using a methodology it

developed, HRTPO staff identified one-way streets in Hampton Roads that—based largely on

pavement width—are candidates for conversion to two-way operation.

The roughly 40 candidate conversion segments are presented by HRTPO staff to the HRTPO

member cities for them to use, determining which (if any) they wish—after review by

applicable departments, agencies, and landowners—to convert to two-way operation.

As they review candidate segments, cities may refer to the Cost section (in the literature review

above) for aid in estimating the cost of specific conversions.

48

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2011 (6th

Edition).

Analytical Capacity Comparison of One-Way and Two-Way Signalized Street Networks, by

Vikash V. Gayah and Carlos F. Daganzo, Transportation Research Record No. 2301, TRB,

Washington DC, 2012.

Converting One-way Streets to Two-way, by John D. Edwards, from Main Street Story of the

Week, Main Street America (preservationnation.org), June 2002.

Downtown Louisville Two-Way Study, by ENTRAN for Downtown Development Corporation,

Louisville KY, Oct. 2009.

Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks?, by G. Wade Walker,

Walter M. Kulash, and Brian T. McHugh of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart,

Inc. (Orlando), TRB Circular E-C019, Urban Street Symposium, Dec. 2000.

Evaluating Urban Downtown One-Way to Two-Way Street Conversion Using Multiple

Resolution Simulation and Assignment Approach, by Yi-Chang Chiu, Xuesong Zhou, and Jessica

Hernandez, in Journal of Urban Planning and Development (ASCE), Dec. 2007.

Hennepin Avenue and 1st Avenue Two-Way Conversion Evaluation Report, Dept. of Public

Works, Minneapolis MN, July 2010.

No Two Ways About It: One-Way Streets are Better Than Two-Way, by Michael Cunneen and

Randal O’Toole, Center for the American Dream of Mobility and Home Ownership, Issue Paper

2-2005, Feb. 2005.

One-Way Streets Provide Superior Safety and Convenience, by John. J. Stemley, ITE Journal,

Aug. 1998.

Safety of One-Way Urban Streets, by I. Hocherman, A. S. Hakkert, and J. Bar-Ziv,

Transportation Research Record 1270, TRB, 1990.

Selecting an Optimum Configuration of Urban One-Way and Two-Way Streets Using Genetic

Algorithms, by Shahriar Afandizadeh Zargari and Reza Taromi, in International Journal of Civil

Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Sept. 2006).

Traffic Engineering Handbook, ITE, Fifth Edition, 1999.

49

Traffic Engineering Succeeds in New York City, by Theodore Karagheuzoff, ITE Traffic

Engineering, Sep. 1972.

Two-Way Street Conversion: Evidence of Increased Livability in Louisville, by William Riggs

and John Gilderbloom, Journal of Planning and Research 1-14, 2015, DOI:

10.1177/0739456X15593147.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #14: BIRTHPLACE OF AMERICA TRAIL: DRAFT Steve Lambert, HRTPO

Given the success of the Virginia Capital Trail (VCT), HRTPO and VDOT staffs worked with a consultant in the preparation of this study identifying preferred routes for multi-use paths running from the end of the VCT in Jamestown to both Fort Monroe and (via the Jamestown/Scotland Ferry) the South Hampton Roads Trail (SHRT) in Suffolk. The draft report will be made available for review following the June TTAC meeting. Mr. Steve Lambert, HRTPO Transportation Planner II, will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review the draft report and submit comments to Steve Lambert (slambert@hrtpo.org) by COB Wednesday, June 21, 2017.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #15: DRAFT FY 2018-2023 SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Dawn Odom, VDOT, and Jitender Ramchandani, DRPT

The Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) is developed annually and identifies the planned use of funds available for highway construction and rail and public transportation. This SYIP is the second program to include projects funded through the new funding structure provided by HB 1887, including SMART SCALE distributed High Priority Projects and District Grant Programs and State of Good Repair. For highway construction, the SYIP identifies, for each project, the timing, amount, and type of funding planned to be available over the upcoming six years. The rail and transit section of the SYIP identifies the planned use of available funding for transit and rail capital for six years, as well as the planned support for transit operations and other programs administered by DRPT for the next year. The total DRAFT FY 2018-2023 SYIP is $18.1 billion – $14.7 billion for Highway Construction and $3.4 billion for Rail and Public Transportation. Statewide, the DRAFT SYIP includes $358 million from the District Grant Program and $658 million from the High Priority Program, all of which is available to fund the consensus scenario for SMART SCALE. In addition, $1.1 billion is allocated to the State of Good Repair Program. The DRAFT SYIP for Highway Construction in the Hampton Roads District is $2.1 billion. Funding from highway formula programs totals $395 million – $78 million from the District Grant Program, $150 million from the High Priority Program and $167 million from the State of Good Repair Program. The DRAFT SYIP for Hampton Roads also reflects $1 billion from the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund (HRTF). The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is scheduled to approve the final FY 2018-2023 SYIP on June 21, 2017. The highway portion of the SYIP may be accessed on the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) website at: http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/allProjects.aspx. The public transportation portion of the SYIP may be accessed on the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) website at: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/media/2106/fy18-draft-syip-may.pdf. Ms. Dawn Odom, VDOT Hampton Roads District Planning and Investment Manager; and Mr. Jitender Ramchandani, DRPT Transit Planning and Project Development Manager; will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review the DRAFT FY 2018-2023 SYIP and submit comments to VDOT and/or DRPT during the public comment period.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #16: 2017 CMAQ/RSTP PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS: OVERVIEW AND TIMELINE Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO

The HRTPO selection process for projects proposed to be funded under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) is conducted annually. Updated project application forms, the Guide to the HRTPO CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process, and other resources may be accessed on the HRTPO website at: http://www.hrtpo.org/page/cmaq-and-rstp/. The deadline for project applications is August 18, 2017. The 2017 Project Selection Process will focus primarily on allocating FY 2024 CMAQ and RSTP funds. Mr. Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Submit CMAQ/RSTP project applications to John Mihaly (jmihaly@hrtpo.org) by COB Friday, August 18, 2017.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #17: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE Steve Lambert, HRTPO

During the Birthplace of America Trail (BOAT) Subcommittee meeting of May 23, 2017, the Subcommittee recommended the establishment of a standing Active Transportation Subcommittee of the TTAC. Mr. Steve Lambert, HRTPO Transportation Planner II, will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Establish an Active Transportation Subcommittee using the membership of the current BOAT Subcommittee.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #18: THREE-MONTH TENTATIVE SCHEDULE July 2017 Wednesday, July 12, 2017

• TTAC Nominating Subcommittee • Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study: Final • Candidates for Conversion of One-Way Streets to Two-Way Streets: Final • Birthplace of America Trail: Final • Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside Program: FY 2019 Timeline • The State of Transportation in Hampton Roads: Draft • Volumes, Speeds, and Congestion on Major Roadways in Hampton Roads: Draft • Hampton Roads Regional Priority Projects Update • TRAFFIX Budget • Complete Streets Working Group

August 2017 Wednesday, August 2, 2017

• Meeting to be canceled

September 2017 Wednesday, September 6, 2017

• The State of Transportation in Hampton Roads: Final • Volumes, Speeds, and Congestion on Major Roadways in Hampton Roads: Final • 2017 CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process: Status Report • MAP-21/FAST Act Performance Measures and Targets • FY 2015-2018 TIP: Quarterly Snapshot

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #19: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. SCENARIO PLANNING REPORT

On November 8-9, 2016, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored a 1.5 day scenario planning workshop at the HRTPO. This workshop provided a forum for participants to exchange best practices and perspectives in terms of transportation planning for the region. A report summarizing noteworthy practices and key recommendations shared during the workshop can be accessed at the following link: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scenario_and_visualization/scenario_planning/peer_exchange/chesapeake_va/index.cfm

B. REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM – POSSIBLE CHANGES During the April TTAC meeting, VDOT staff provided a briefing on the Revenue Sharing Program and possible changes to the program being considered by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). During the May CTB Workshop, the CTB received a presentation on recommended changes to the Revenue Sharing Program from its Revenue Sharing Program Study Committee. Key changes being recommended include:

• Reduce the maximum a locality can apply for each fiscal year from $10 million to $5 million ($10 million per biennium)

• Establish a lifetime allocation maximum of $10 million (state match) per project, including transfers to the project

The Study Committee’s presentation may be accessed on the CTB website at: http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/may/pres/8_may_revenue_sharing_study_committee_update.pdf

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #20: ANNOUNCEMENTS Announcements of interest to the TTAC may be made at this time. A. TRAFFIX SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

The TRAFFIX Subcommittee (TS) will meet on Wednesday, June 7, 2017, in the Regional Building, Conference Room D. The meeting will begin directly following the TTAC meeting.

B. HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

The Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) Subcommittee will meet on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, in the Regional Building Board Room (B). The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m.

C. HRTPO BOARD MEETING

The HRTPO Board will not meet during the month of June.

D. TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

The next meeting of the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) will be on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, in the Regional Building Board Room. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m.

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – June 7, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #21: OLD/NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT