New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads

Transcription

1 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads June 30, 2004 Town of Ashland Counties of Charles City Chesterfield Goochland Hanover Henrico New Kent Powhatan City of Richmond Richmond Regional Planning District Commission 2104 West Laburnum Avenue, Suite 101 Richmond, Virginia Phone: (804) Fax: (804)

2 Richmond Regional Planning District Commission Planning district commissions make government more efficient and effective through coordinated planning and program analysis. Virginia's General Assembly created planning districts in 1968 under the authority of the Virginia Area Development Act - revised as the Regional Cooperation Act in to promote orderly and efficient development of the physical, social and economic elements of the districts. Through planning district commissions, now 21 in number, local governments solve mutual problems which cross boundary lines and obtain expertise from professional staffs and advice on making the most of scarce taxpayer dollars through intergovernmental cooperation. Members Town of Ashland Angela L. LaCombe Charles City County Michael L. Holmes Chesterfield County Edward B. Barber Kelly E. Miller Sherman W. Litton R.M. Dickie King George A. Roarty Arthur S. Warren Renny B. Humphrey Goochland County Malvern R. Butler Frank M. Hartz Hanover County John G. Dankos, Jr. Elizabeth W. Moorhouse John E. Gordon, Jr. Robert R. Setliff Henrico County James B. Donati, Jr. Richard W. Glover David A. Kaechele Patricia S. O Bannon Gentry Bell Lisa D. Ware Frank J. Thornton New Kent County Mark S. Daniel Stran L. Trout Powhatan County Russel E. Holland Richard W. Ayers City of Richmond Delores L. McQuinn William J. Pantele Peter R. Grimm John C. Grier (Citizen Representative) Staff Paul E. Fisher Executive Director Jo A. Evans Assistant Executive Director Peter M. Sweetland Finance and Contracts Administrator Patricia A. Villa Communications Coordinator Daniel N. Lysy Director of Transportation Michael O. Clements Principal Planner Lawrence C. Hagin Principal Planner Jin H. Lee Senior Planner James N. Britton Associate Planner + Principal project staff Jacqueline S. Stewart+ Director of Planning & Info. Systems Michelle E. Fults+ Principal Planner Christine H. Fix+ Senior Planner Joseph M. Ndanga Senior Planner Leigh R. Medford+ Planning Technician GIS Katherine E. Barrett Executive Secretary Rhonda J. Bailey Administrative Secretary Sharon E. Robeson Administrative Secretary Demetra N. Jones Receptionist/Secretary

3 Acknowledgement Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Disclaimer The contents of this document reflect the views of the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission. The Commission is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. FHWA or VDOT acceptance of this document as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of the rural transportation planning 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.

4 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...2 EXISTING CONDITIONS...4 RECOMMENDED ROADWAYS...6 MAPS...10 APPENDIX...16 Page 1

5 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads Introduction The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Rural Rustic Road Program, first introduced through legislation in the 2002 session of the General Assembly of Virginia, is intended to pave more miles of low volume unpaved roads with limited funding through minimal encroachment beyond existing rights of way, alignment, and drainage without compromising the safety of the road. A pilot program in Augusta County in July 2002 demonstrated the success of the concept. Six sites in Augusta County returned a total cost savings of over $2.8 million. The pilot program recommendations returned in November 2002 with legislative language, guidelines for designation, environmental requirements and an approval process. These were taken to the General Assembly 2003 session, approved, and amended to reflect that the Rural Rustic Road method is considered as the first alternative for improving all unpaved roads in the future. The program was official effective July 1, See the Appendix for full eligibility criteria, approval process, environmental requirements, and enabling legislation. (Please see Traffic Volume, Road Rights of Way, and Future Land Use Maps for a graphical depiction of several of the criteria.) Figures 1 and 2 Before and after pilot project in Augusta County, Virginia. The benefits of the Rural Rustic Road Program are primarily cost savings through lessening of construction and engineering costs due to less or no realignment or drainage modifications. On the average, cost savings were realized at $366,278 per mile in the pilot program. While there is a reduction in expenditures, it must be noted that this is not a complete savings because the cost estimates are based on a completely finished, engineered, and paved product, while the Rural Rustic Road Program only resurfaces and levels a road bed moderately with gravel or an all-weather surface. While these methods are not fully equivalent, the Rural Rustic Road improvements meet the immediate needs of the users and the county, while the state benefits through the limiting of paving construction costs, allowing scarce transportation funds to be used prudently. Guidelines for the Rural Rustic Road Program are as follows: Page 2

6 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads Must be an unpaved road already within the state secondary system. Must carry at least 50 but no more than 500 vehicles per day. Must be a priority (line item) in an approved Secondary Six-Year Plan, even if the funding source is not from normal, secondary construction allocations. Governing body of county, in consultation with VDOT s Resident Engineer or designee, must designate a road or road segment as a Rural Rustic Road. Roadway or roadway section must be predominately for local traffic use. The local nature of the road means that most motorists using the road have traveled it before and are familiar with its features. County Board of Supervisors will endeavor to limit growth on roads improved under the Rural Rustic Road program and cooperate with the Department through its comprehensive planning process to develop lands consistent with rural rustic road concepts. Requires a special resolution designating the road as a Rural Rustic Road by county Board of Supervisors for each individual road. Figure 3 Route 634, an existing rural rustic road in New Kent County Page 3

7 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads Existing Conditions With approximately 57 miles of unpaved roadway in New Kent County, VDOT along with New Kent County wants to reduce the construction and maintenance costs of these local traveled roads. VDOT currently has several secondary roads in New Kent County with a total length of 24 miles slated for improvement through the Rural Rustic Roads Program. (Please see Existing and Proposed Rural Rustic Roads Map.) Table 1 lists all roadways either in the construction process or the Figure 4 Many rural rustic roads are surrounded by farmhouses and agricultural or forestal fields planning phase for the Rural Rustic Road Program. Most of these have approved construction plans and should be completed by the end of the calendar year (taken from the VDOT Project Dashboard web site as of April 19, 2004). Table 1 District Route Description Activity Richmond 605 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD Approved Construction Plans (71) Richmond 653 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD Approved Construction Plans (71) Richmond 642 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD SERP - Notice to State Agencies (18) Richmond 626 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD Approved Construction Plans (71) Richmond 647 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD Approved Construction Plans (71) Richmond 673 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD Approved Construction Plans (71) Richmond 634 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD Approved Construction Plans (71) Richmond 1104 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD Approved Construction Plans (71) Richmond 643 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD Approved Construction Plans (71) Richmond 602 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD SERP - Notice to State Agencies (18) Richmond 628 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD SERP - Notice to State Agencies (18) Richmond 624 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD SERP - Notice to State Agencies (18) Richmond 647 RTE RURAL RUSTIC ROAD SERP - Notice to State Agencies (18) Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, Project Dashborard April 19, This leaves about 34 miles of unpaved roadways to be considered for the Rural Rustic Road Program. (Please see traffic volume map.) Based on 2002 VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Estimates slightly over 25 miles are considered to be eligible under the adopted criteria. (Please see Appendix for full report.) Table 2 lists all non-paved VDOT Page 4

8 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads secondary roads and whether they are eligible for the Rural Rustic Program. Of those not eligible, most are estimated under the average annual daily traffic (AADT) count minimum limit of 50. Two roadways, Routes 614 and 633 (a portion of), deemed ineligible due to low AADT have been recommended for inclusion at a later date. Both of these roadways have an AADT very close to the 50 threshold and it is likely that within the next survey of traffic counts these roadways would be eligible. Table 2 District Route Length (miles) Eligible Reason Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond no AADT Low Richmond no AADT Low Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond no AADT Low Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond no AADT Low Richmond no AADT High Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond no AADT Low Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond no AADT Low Richmond yes Richmond yes Richmond yes Source: 2002 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Including Classification Estimates, Jurisdiction Report 63, New Kent County. Only one roadway exceeds the AADT limit: Route 637. This roadway has been treated with an all-weather surface but needs to be repaved due to the many potholes and deteriorating conditions. This roadway contains the Cumberland Hospital for Children and Adolescents at its terminus, which leads to the high traffic count and would benefit from proper maintenance. Also, Route 632 contains portions that are eligible for inclusion in the Rural Rustic Roads Program but contains segments that exceed the ADT limit. This road may be given special consideration once needs are determined. Page 5

9 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads Recommended Roadways These recommended roadways meet the VDOT Rural Rustic Roads Program standards and are the preferred roadways for inclusion into the program. Several roadways were excluded due to location, length, or where site visits proved that the roadway was treated with an all weather surface and were not gravel. Route 607 in the Tunstall area from the intersection of Route 606 to its terminus just shy of the York River is a very wooded and rustic roadway. The only development along this road is several homes near and or facing the York River. This roadway is also in an area that is deemed as prime agricultural or forestal lands by the New Kent County comprehensive plan. A small bridge crosses Dickerson Swamp and is labeled in the Figure 5 Route 607 comprehensive plan as a conservation area along its banks. It should also be noted that Route 607 is close to Route 608, which is a state scenic byway. These special roadways are designated to preserve and showcase Virginia s scenic and unspoiled areas. Route 614 is not only rustic, but leads to a place of history. The White House, along the York River, is located at the end of Route 614. While the house itself was burned by union troops during the Civil War this area has been an integral part of the County s history since its formation when it was the home of Martha Custis Washington. Tradition has it that Martha married George Washington here. A historical highway marker indicating the White House history is located roughly six miles southwest at the Figure 6 Route 614 toward White House Page 6

10 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads intersection of Routes 609 and 249. The area along the York River and in the direct area of Route 614 is designated as prime agricultural lands and should remain based on the county comprehensive plan. Route 608, from which Route 614 is located, is a designated Virginia Scenic Byway. This designation further enhances the justification and recommendation for Route 614 into the rural rustic roads program. Route 620 on the northeast side of the Diascund Reservoir from the intersection with Route 672 to the intersection with Route 632 has retained a very rural flavor due to the limited development surrounding this roadway. The New Kent County comprehensive plan indicates that lands surrounding Route 620 will remain rural in nature. This in part is due to the drainage area that feeds into the Diascund Reservoir, which stems from three creeks that feed the reservoir. The reservoir is a drinking water supply for the City of Newport News, as well as James City and York counties. Route 632 from Route 33 to the intersection with Route 621 is the longest length of road, almost 4.5 miles, slated for nomination into the Rural Rustic Roads Program. The gravel roadway north of interstate 64 between the West Point exit and the Toano exit in James City County is in a fairly isolated part of New Kent, but is often used as a local link between Route 33 and the Barhamsville Figure 7 Route 620 indicating few large lot home sites Village. As indicated in the county comprehensive plan, this area is to remain rural with most land uses being agricultural in the nature of large homesteads. Page 7

11 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads Route 633 extends from the intersection of Route 30, just north of Barhamsville, to the intersection with Routes 30 and 639. This portion of Route 633 is well suited to the Rustic Roads Program. Lightly traveled, this roadway contains many wooded areas including lands used for a hunt club and forestry. With only few homes along the route this road is primarily for local usage. Figure 8 Hunt club lands along Route 633 Route 658 extends from the intersection with Route 611 to its terminus as a state maintained roadway. Portions of Route 611, which is rural in nature as well, are similar to Route 658 in that AADT counts are under 500 vehicles per day. Route 658 itself contains homes that are on large wooded lots, thus making the case that most of the drivers along this road are local and are familiar with the road layout. Route 676 this roadway near the New Kent County Airport is located off Route 612, which is one of the few connections between the northern and southern portions of New Kent County. The county, bisected by Interstate 64, Figure 9 Route 658 has limited crossing points over the heavily traveled interstate that leads to the Tidewater Peninsula. This allows for lands adjoining the interstate to be left relatively undisturbed and limits development potential. The area along this route is slated for rural lands based on the future land uses in the county comprehensive plan. Page 8

12 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads Route 672 from the intersection with Route 620 to its terminus is another prime roadway recommend for inclusion in the rural rustic program. This road winds down a narrow peninsula bounded by Beverdam Creek and Wahrani Swamp, both of which drain to the Diascund Reservoir. With only few homes along this roadway, this road is peaceful and serene and affords views of the reservoir. The lands along this road are slated to remain rural as indicated by the county comprehensive plan. Route 678 from the intersection with Route 249 to its terminus at Interstate 64 is another fine roadway for inclusion in the Rural Rustic Roads Program. Its ideal situation off of Route 249, which is designated as a Virginia Scenic Byway, is home to many acres of fields, forested areas, and farms. One farm on Route 678 is listed a Virginia Century Farm. This special designation is afforded only to family farms that have been in the same family and under production for Figure 10 Clarke s Farm, a Virginia Century Farm, on Route 678 over 100 years; there are only five farms in New Kent County that have been given this designation by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Page 9

13 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads Maps Existing and Proposed Rural Rustic Roads Map Road Network Map Traffic Volume Map Road Rights of Way Map Future Land Use 2020 Map Page 10

14 607 Rural Rustic Roads Assessment Existing and Proposed Rural Rustic Roads New Kent County New Kent County Airport Existing Rural Rustic Road Proposed Rural Rustic Road Scenic Road Road Network Interstate Highway 672 Major Road Local Road Drive 647 Water Feature Stream / Shoreline Intermittent Stream River, Lake, Pond Miles Data Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, 2004 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Richmond Regional PDC, 2004 Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, June 2004

15 606 Rural Rustic Roads Assessment Road Network New Kent County New Kent County Airport Railroad Utility Road Network Interstate US Highway State Highway Local Road Water Feature Stream / Shoreline Intermittent Stream River, Lake, Pond 627 Miles Data Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, 2004 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Richmond Regional PDC, 2004 Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, June 2004

16 606 Rural Rustic Roads Assessment Traffic Volume New Kent County New Kent County Airport Railroad Utility Vehicles Per Day (vpd) Over 10,000 vpd 5,001-10,000 vpd 2,001-5,000 vpd 1,001-2,000 vpd 500-1,000 vpd Under 500 vpd Road Network Interstate US Highway State Highway Local Road Water Feature Stream / Shoreline Intermittent Stream River, Lake, Pond Miles Data Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, 2004 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Richmond Regional PDC, 2004 Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, June 2004

17 Rural Rustic Roads Assessment 606 Road Rights of Way New Kent County New Kent County Airport Railroad Utility Road Rights of Way Interstate US / State Highway 30' R/W 40' R/W 50' R/W Variable with minimum 40' 628 Variable with minimum 50' Variable with minimum 60' Variable with minimum 80' Driveway 4x4 Road Water Feature Stream / Shoreline Intermittent Stream River, Lake, Pond Miles Data Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, 2004 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Richmond Regional PDC, 2004 Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, June 2004

18 Rural Rustic Roads Assessment Future Land Use New Kent County New Kent County Airport Railroad Utility Hamlet Future Land Use Village 64 Rural Lands Suburban Housing Detached Economic Opportunity Commercial Industrial 628 Agricultural / Forest 60 Conservation Environmental Buffer 627 Road Network Interstate US Highway State Highway Local Road Water Feature Stream / Shoreline Intermittent Stream River, Lake, Pond Data Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, 2004 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Richmond Regional PDC, 2004 Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, June Miles 10

19 New Kent County Rural Rustic Roads Appendix Virginia Department of Transportation s Rural Rustic Road Program 2002 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Including Vehicle Classification Estimates, Jurisdiction Report 63, New Kent County Page 16

20 Virginia Department of Transportation s Rural Rustic Road Program Prepared by the Office of Local Assistance Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia James S. Givens, Director June 2003 July 1, 2003

21 Foreword The Local Assistance Division and the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee are pleased to present these Guidelines for Rural Rustic Roads. This concept, first enacted by the 2002 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia, is a practical approach to paving Virginia's Low Volume Unpaved Roads. A pilot program implemented in July 2002, demonstrated the success of this program concept. It ensures that we practice environmental and financial stewardship while providing basic paved access to more of our rural countryside. The 2003 Session of the General Assembly amended the legislation to provide that this method will be considered as a first alternative for improving all unpaved roads in the future. The Rural Rustic Road Program is effective July 1,2003. Special appreciation is expressed to the Members of the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee: Julie R. Brown Local Assistance Division Rob N. Bowman, P.E. Amelia Residency Judith C. Dunn Programming Division James S. Givens Local Assistance Division Junior H. Goad, P.E. Hillsville Residency Conrad L. Hill Lebanon Residency Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Fredericksburg Residency Michael C. McCormack Amherst Residency Brennan B. Snyder Environmental Division Joe F. Staton Warsaw Residency David A. Steele, P.E. Waverly Residency Stephen A.Tyrrell, P.E. Leesburg Residency Jerry R. VanLear, P.E. Verona Residency Jimmy W. White, Jr. Lexington Residency C. F. 'Frank' Gee, P.E. Chief Engineer of Operations July 1, 2003

22 RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Unpaved Road Improvement Program Options... 1 Guidelines For Rural Rustic Road Program... 2 Eligibility Criteria... 2 VDOT Review Of Rural Rustic Road Candidate Projects... 3 Approval Process...4 Environmental Requirements For Rural Rustic Road Program... 5 Sample Resolution For Rural Rustic Road Project... 6 Scoping Document... 7 Enabling Legislation... 8 July 1, 2003

23 Introduction The Rural Rustic Road Program will significantly improve VDOT's ability to pave the vast backlog of unpaved roads. The following chart will help guide whether the Rural Rustic Road option is the best alternative for a given road. Unpaved Road Improvement Program Options Roadway Status Unpaved Road Pave-In-Place Rural Rustic Road The road must already be a state maintained road in the secondary system of state highways. These programs do not apply to the addition and improvement of roads that are privately maintained. Traffic Volume VPD = vehicles per day Limitations are based on funding (see below). 50 vpd minimum for unpaved road funds, otherwise no minimum for normal secondary construction funding vpd vpd County Government Action and Funding Project must be in the County s Secondary Six- Year Plan (SSYP) of improvements. Project must be in the County s Secondary Six- Year Plan (SSYP) of improvements. Project must be in the County s Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) of improvements. Board must also request the Rural Rustic Road Program be used, by passing a special resolution declaring the road a Rural Rustic Road. Land Use Growth Factor No restrictions. No restrictions. The County Board indicates growth and traffic generated by the land are not expected to increase significantly over the next 10 years. Safety Safety factors are addressed as part of the project. Safety factors are addressed as part of the project. Ideally, the road can be paved as it is without any special needs regarding alignment, drainage or safety issues. Alignment Reconstruct as necessary to improve alignment and grade. Minor changes in alignment may be necessary to address issues. Generally, the existing alignment should be capable of safely handling the traffic volume and increased speeds that may result from the improved riding conditions. Drainage Roadway drainage will be improved, if needed. Roadway drainage will be improved, if needed. Existing drainage provisions should be sufficient with minimal improvement. Right of Way Abutting property owners will need to provide additional right of way, normally 50 feet in width. Paving may be done within the existing right of way, but abutting property owners are normally expected to donate additional rightof-way for spot widening, if necessary for safety. Paving may be done within the existing right of way, which may be a minimum of 30 feet. 7/2/03 1

24 GUIDELINES FOR RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM Effective July 1, 2003 The following guidelines apply to the Rural Rustic Road Program: Eligibility Criteria Must be an unpaved road already within the State Secondary System. Must carry at least 50 but no more than 500 vehicles per day. Must be a priority (line item) in an approved Secondary Six-Year Plan, even if the funding source is not from normal, secondary construction allocations. Governing body of County, in consultation with VDOT s Resident Engineer or designee, must designate a road or road segment as a Rural Rustic Road. Roadway or roadway section must be predominately for local traffic use. The local nature of the road means that most motorists using the road have traveled it before and are familiar with its features. County Board of Supervisors will endeavor to limit growth on roads improved under the Rural Rustic Road program and cooperate with the Department through its comprehensive planning process to develop lands consistent with rural rustic road concepts. Requires a special Resolution designating the road as a Rural Rustic Road by County Board of Supervisors for each individual road (see page 6). 7/2/03 2

25 VDOT Review of Rural Rustic Road Candidate Projects Consider the views of the governing body making the request and of the residents and owners of the adjacent property. Consider the historical and aesthetic significance of such road and its surroundings. Focus on leaving trees, vegetation, side slopes, and open drainage abutting the roadway undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. Improvements along Rural Rustic Roads may be less than minimum design standards, as outlined in the Chief Engineer s memorandum dated June 11, AASHTO s Guidelines For Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT <= 400) may be used as a guide. Look for evidence of site-specific safety problems and focus safety expenditures on those sites where a site-specific safety problem exists. Consideration should be given to appropriate warning signs as needed. Low volume local roads have very few crashes. Even when 5 10 year crash data are available, this data will often be so sparse that other indicators of safety problems should be considered as well. Such other indicators may include field reviews to note skid marks or roadside damage, speed data (which may indicate whether speeds are substantially higher than the intended design speed), or concerns raised by police or local residents. 7/2/03 3

26 Approval Process *Resident Engineer is VDOT s designated representative in dealing with County Boards of Supervisors regarding Rural Rustic Roads. Board of Supervisors requests the Resident Engineer to evaluate a section of road as a candidate for the Rural Rustic Road program. Resident Engineer advises Board whether road appears to be a good candidate for program. Resident Engineer will review all proposed unpaved road projects in the approved Secondary Six-Year Plan for eligibility as a Rural Rustic Road project. Board of Supervisors designates road as Rural Rustic Road, by resolution. Resident Engineer concurs in designation and determines if improvements can be made according to Rural Rustic Road concepts and advises Board of project concept. If for some reason the Board of Supervisors does not accept the final decision from the Resident Engineer after consideration by the District Administrator s office, a final appeal may be sent through the Resident Engineer and District Administrator to the Chief Engineer, for consideration by the Commissioner. Resident Engineer requests assistance from other divisions, as needed in developing project in accordance with Rural Rustic Road Guidelines. Requires State Environmental Review Process and permit determination by Environmental staff of VDOT. Requires scoping documentation (either LD-430 package or modified scoping document developed by Programming Division, see page 7). *Note: The Transportation Manager will be VDOT s designated representative in Northern Virginia. 7/2/03 4

27 Environmental Requirements for Rural Rustic Road Program All projects being considered for this program should be reviewed by the Residency Environmental Specialist or District Environmental Staff for consideration of the following: 1. SERP (Requires days) Is not required if there are: i. No improvements, ii. No horizontal/vertical realignments, iii. No widening, and iv. No acquisition of right of way. 2. Water Quality Permits (Requires days) Are not required if there are: i. No streams, ii. No water bodies, iii. No wetlands, iv. No water in pipes/culverts/ditches, and v. No intermittent/sometimes dry channels. 3. Cultural Resources (Requires 7-30 days) No coordination is required if there are: i. No water quality permits and ii. Project is not located within a Rural Historic District listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register and/or the National Register of Historic Places. Such districts include, but may not be limited to, the Green Springs Historic District (Louisa Counties), the Catoctin Rural Historic District (Loudoun and Fauquier Counties), and the Madison- Barbour Rural Historic District (Madison and Orange Counties). 4. Threatened and Endangered Species (Requires days) A database search on the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries website must be conducted by Environmental staff for all projects. No further coordination is required if there are: i. No water quality permits and ii. No threatened and endangered species identified in collections on the DGIF database. 5. Agricultural and Forestal Districts (Requires days) No coordination is required if there will be: i. No purchase of right of way and ii. No exchange of right of way for work performed by VDOT. 1. Straight donation of right of way is acceptable. 6. VPDES Permit (Requires 14 days) Is not required if there is: i. No clearing, grading, or excavating (earthwork or manipulation of subgrade and shoulders) that results in land disturbance equal to or greater than 1 acre on one project or any combination of adjacent projects. 7. Hazardous Materials (Requires variable amount of time) No coordination is required if there is: i. No obvious signs of contamination within the project vicinity. 7/2/03 5

28 Sample Resolution for Rural Rustic Road Project The Board of Supervisors of, in regular meeting on the day of,, adopted the following: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise of the code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard surfacing of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, such roads must be located in a low-density development area and have a minimum of 50 vehicles per day (vpd), and have no more than 500 vpd; and WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the existing traffic on the road; and WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have been aware of this road being paved with minimal improvements; and WHEREAS, this Board believes Route should be designated a Rural Rustic Road, owing to its qualifying characteristics; and WHEREAS, the road aforesaid is in this Board s six-year plan for improvements to its secondary system of state highways: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board hereby designates and requests VDOT s Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road as a Rural Rustic Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right of way and ditch-lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their current state. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution is forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: Yeas: Nays: Signed Printed Name Title A Copy Teste: 7/2/03 6

29 RURAL RUSTIC ROAD SCOPING DOCUMENT Date: / / County of: Priority # (200_/0_ SRCIP): Road Name: Project Number: UPC/ID #: Date of Scoping: / /_ Length: miles FHWA 534 Data Number: Existing Right Of Way: ft. in width Existing geometrics: lanes feet wide shoulders ft to width, width ditch Traffic Count: ADT taken in Scope of Proposed Work: SERP completed: Permit determination: / /_ / /_ PE estimate: $ CN estimate: $ Allocations to-date: $ Expenditures as of / /_ : $ Proposed advertisement/start date: / /_ County s Rural Rustic Road Resolution dated / /_ 7/2/03 7

30 Enabling Legislation Requesting Department to hard-surface secondary roads; paving of certain secondary roads within existing rights-of-way; designation as Rural Rustic Road. A. Whenever the governing body of any county, after consultation with personnel of the Department of Transportation, adopts a resolution requesting the Department of Transportation to hard-surface any secondary road in such county that carries fifty or more vehicles per day with a hard surface of width and strength adequate for such traffic volume, the Department of Transportation shall give consideration to such resolution in establishing priority in expending the funds allocated to such county. The Department shall consider the paving of roads with a right-of-way width of less than forty feet under this subsection when land is, has been, or can be acquired by gift for the purpose of constructing a hard-surface road. B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of this section, any unpaved secondary road that carries at least fifty but no more than 750 vehicles per day may be paved or improved and paved within its existing right-of-way or within a wider right-of-way that is less than forty feet wide if the following conditions are met: 1. The governing body of the county in which the road is located has requested paving of such road as part of the six-year plan for the county under and transmitted that request to the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner. 2. The Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, after having considered only (i) the safety of such road in its current condition and in its paved or improved condition, including the desirability of reduced speed limits and installation of other warning signs or devices, (ii) the views of the residents and owners of property adjacent to or served by such road, (iii) the views of the governing body making the request, (iv) the historical and aesthetic significance of such road and its surroundings, (v) the availability of any additional land that has been or may be acquired by gift or other means for the purpose of paving such road within its existing right-of-way or within a wider right-of-way that is less than forty feet wide, and (vi) environmental considerations, shall grant or deny the request for the paving of such road under this subsection. C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections A and B, the governing body of any county, in consultation with the Department, may designate a road or road segment as a Rural Rustic Road provided such road or road segment (i) is located in a low-density development area and has an average daily traffic volume of no more than 500 vehicles per day and (ii) has a posted speed limit consistent with the topography and features along the road. For a road or road segment so designated, improvements shall utilize a paved surface width based on reduced and flexible standards that leave trees, vegetation, side slopes and open drainage abutting the roadway undisturbed to the maximum extent possible without compromising public safety. The provisions of this subsection shall become effective July 1, D. The Commonwealth, its agencies, instrumentalities, departments, officers, and employees acting within the scope of their duties and authority shall be immune for damages by reason of actions taken in conformity with the provisions of this section. Immunity for the governing body of any political subdivision requesting paving under this section and the officers and employees of any such political subdivision shall be limited to that immunity provided pursuant to /2/03 8

31 2002 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Including Vehicle Classification Estimates where available Jurisdiction Report 63 New Kent County Prepared By Virginia Department of Transportation Mobility Management Division In Cooperation With U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

32 Virginia Department of Transportation Mobility Management Division Traffic Monitoring Section The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) conducts a program where traffic count data are gathered from sensors in or along streets and highways and other sources. From these data, estimates of the average number of vehicles that traveled each segment of road are calculated. VDOT periodically publishes booklets listing these estimates. One of these booklets, titled Average Daily Traffic Volumes with Vehicle Classification Data, on Interstate, Arterial and Primary Routes includes a list of each Interstate and Primary highway segment with the estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for that segment. AADT is the total annual traffic estimate divided by the number of days in the year. This booklet also includes information such as estimates of the percentage of the AADT made up by 6 different vehicle types, ranging from cars to double trailer trucks; estimated Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWDT), which is the number of vehicles estimated to have traveled the segment of highway during a 24 hour weekday averaged over the year; as well as Peak Hour and Peak Direction factors used by planners to formulate design criteria. In addition to the Primary and Interstate publication, one hundred books are published periodically, one for each of 100 areas across the state defined by VDOT for recordkeeping purposes. These books include traffic volume estimates for roads within the county, cities, and towns within the area. These books are titled Daily Traffic Volumes Including Vehicle Classification Estimates, where available; Jurisdiction Report numbers 00 through 99. Also available are a number of reports summarizing the average Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in selected jurisdictions and other categories of highways. There are many different ways to present traffic volume summary information. Because the user determines the value of each presentation, the reports have been redesigned based on user requests and feedback. The people at VDOT Mobility Management s Traffic Monitoring Section who produce these books welcome requests for other helpful ways of presenting the summary information. A compact disc (CD) is available that includes files in the Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) that can be displayed, searched, and printed using common desktop computer equipment. The CD includes the publications described above as well as a number of other reports, including specialized VMT summaries and smaller AADT reports for each city and town separately.

33 Publication Notes Parallel Roads For road inventory and management purposes, some roadways are counted separately by direction and have separately published traffic estimates for each direction of travel. Examples of such roadways are the interstate system and routes with separated facilities and (usually) one-way traffic facilities in urban areas. In these publications, they are referred to as parallel roads. As a convenience for the users of the publication, the listing for segments of roads with parallel segments are published with both the traffic estimates for their own direction of travel (e.g. I-95 Northbound) as well as the estimate of the total of all traffic on the same route including parallel roadways (all directions of I-95). The publication will have a Combined Traffic Estimates for Parallel Roadways on this Route or Combined Traffic identifiers for the combined direction of travel estimates. Roadways such as I-395 with a North segment, a South segment and a separate Reversible lane segment will have the estimate for more than two parallel roadways included in the entire combined traffic estimate. Some routes have very complicated paths through cities and towns. These parallel paths may be too complex to allow a relationship between nearby sections of the opposite direction on the same route. In this case, to indicate that the traffic estimates for such a road segment may not include all directions of traffic on that route, the line that would list the combined values will indicate NA for not available. VDOT s traffic monitoring program includes more than 100,000 segments of roads and highways ranging from several mile sections of Interstate highways to very short sections of city streets. Due to problems experienced obtaining some traffic count data, and the level of quality necessary to maintain confidence in the data, no estimate is currently available for some segments of roadway. These segments are included in the publications indicating NA for not available. It is the intention of the VDOT s Mobility Management Traffic Monitoring group to obtain the data necessary and to report traffic volume estimates on all road segments included in these publications. Many of the road segments in this program are local secondary roads. The amount and detail of data collected on these roads are not as great as the data collected on higher volume roads. The vehicle classification, average weekday traffic volumes, and the theoretical design hour traffic volumes are not calculated for these roads. The publications indicate NA for the information that is not available. This publication is based on a traffic monitoring program initiated in Because the data collection techniques and statistical evaluation processes are different than those used in previous years, comparison with previous publications may be misleading.

34 Glossary of Terms: Route: The Route Number assigned to this segment of roadway with the master inventory route number if this is an overlapping route, with official street or highway name if available. Length: Length of the traffic segment in miles. AADT: Annual Average Daily Traffic. The estimate of typical daily traffic on a road segment for all days of the week, Sunday through Saturday, over the period of one year. QA: Quality of AADT: A Average of Complete Continuous Count Data B Average of Selected Continuous Count Data F Factored Short Term Traffic Count Data G Factored Short Term Traffic Count Data with Growth Element H Historical Estimate M Manual Uncounted Estimate N AADT of Similar Neighboring Traffic Link O Provided By External Source R Raw Traffic Count, Unfactored 4Tire: Percentage of the traffic volume made up of motorcycles, passenger cars, vans and pickup trucks. Bus: Percentage of the traffic volume made up of busses. 2Axle Truck: Percentage of the traffic volume made up of 2 axle single unit trucks (not including pickups and vans). 3+Axle Truck: Percentage of the traffic volume made up of single unit trucks with three or more axles. 1Trail Truck: Percentage of the traffic volume made up of units with a single trailer. 2Trail Truck: Percentage of the traffic volume made up of units with more than one trailer. QC: Quality of Classification Data: A Average of Complete Continuous Count Data B Average of Selected Continuous Count Data C Short Term Classified Traffic Count Data F Factored Short Term Traffic Count Data H Historical Estimate M Mass Collective Average N Classification Estimates of Similar Neighboring Traffic Link

35 Peak Hour: The estimate of the traffic volume for the 30 th highest traffic volume occurring in a one-year period divided by the AADT for the same one-year period. QK: Quality of the Peak Hour estimate: A Factor based on 30th Highest Hour Observed During 12 Months of Continuous Traffic Data B Factor based on 30th Highest Hour Observed During Less than 12 Months of Continuous Traffic Data F Factor based on Highest Hour Collected at in a 48 Hour Weekday Period M Factor based on Manual Estimate of 30th Highest Hour N Peak Hour Factor of Similar Neighboring Traffic Link O Provided by External Source Dir Factor: The estimate of the portion of the traffic volume traveling in the peak direction during the Peak Hour.. AAWDT: Average Annual Weekday Traffic. The estimate of typical traffic over the period of one year for the days between Monday through Thursday inclusive. QW: Quality of AAWDT: A Average of Complete Continuous Count Data B Average of Selected Continuous Count Data F Factored Short Term Traffic Count Data G Factored Short Term Traffic Count Data with Growth Element M Manual Uncounted Estimate N AAWDT of Similar Neighboring Traffic Link O Provided by External Source Year: Year for which the published values are appropriate. If the Quality of AADT (QA) is R, the year is the year that the raw traffic count was collected, and if available,

36 Route Shield Legend North 81 Interstate Route Route Systems Traffic volume data for Interstate Routes and some other routes are reported separately by direction, as well as combined. 29 US Route 7 Virginia State Route 600 Secondary Route Special Routes Bus 29 ALT 220 Bus - Business Route Bypas - Bypass Route Truck - Truck Route ALT - Alternate Route Wye - Wye Route connector 11 P P - Parallel Route; Southbound or Westbound direction lanes of a numbered route where they are on a different road facility than the other direction. The VDOT Maintainenance Jurisdiction number is displayed below the Secondary Route Number if the Maintenance Jurisdiction is different than the jurisdiction in the title of the report.

37 Route Length AADT Virginia Department of Transportation Mobility Management Division 2002 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates By Section of Route New Kent Maintenance Area QA 4Tire Bus Truck Axle 3+Axle 1Trail 2Trail QC Peak Hour QK Dir Factor AAWDT QW New Kent County King William County Line F 87% 1% 3% 1% 8% 0% F 0.08 F F SR 33 & 249 Angelview Church F 86% 1% 2% 3% 8% 0% C F F 2002 SR 273 Barhamsville F 86% 1% 2% 3% 8% 0% F F F 2002 James City County Line Henrico County Line F 92% 0% 2% 2% 4% 0% F F F US 60 BOTTOMS BRIDGE F 92% 1% 3% 1% 3% 0% F F F 2002 I-64 SR 33, SR See I-64 for directional traffic volume estimates for this segment. Combined Traffic: F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F SR 106 RT 60 BOTTOMS BRIDGE See I-64 for directional traffic volume estimates for this segment. Combined Traffic: F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F SR See I-64 for directional traffic volume estimates for this segment. Combined Traffic: F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F SR 33 I-64 East Int F 86% 1% 1% 1% 11% 0% F F F 2002 SR 249 & 30, Angelview Church SR ANGELVIEW CHURCH F 87% 1% 3% 1% 8% 0% F 0.08 F F 2002 King William County Line Henrico County Line F 92% 0% 2% 2% 4% 0% F F F 2002 SR 33 Bottoms Bridge F F F 2002 SR F 0.09 F F F F F 2002 SR 155 Providence Forge F F F 2002 James City County Line East 64 East 64 East 64 East 64 Combined Traffic: Henrico County Line G 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F 0.1 F G G 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F 0.1 F G SR 33, SR F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F 2002 Combined Traffic: F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F SR F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F 0.09 F F 2002 Combined Traffic: F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F SR F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F 2002 Combined Traffic: F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F SR 33 Year /14/2003 1

38 Route New Kent County East 64 West 64 West 64 West 64 West 64 West 64 West 64 Length Combined Traffic: Combined Traffic: Combined Traffic: Combined Traffic: Combined Traffic: Combined Traffic: Combined Traffic: AADT Virginia Department of Transportation Mobility Management Division 2002 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates By Section of Route New Kent Maintenance Area QA 4Tire Bus Truck Axle 3+Axle 1Trail 2Trail QC Peak Hour QK Dir Factor AAWDT QW SR G 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F G G 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F G James City County Line Henrico County Line G 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F NA G G 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F 0.1 F G SR 33, SR F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F NA F SR F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F NA F SR F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F F F 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F NA F SR 33 Par N 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% N N N N 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% N NA N SR G 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F G G 94% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% F F G James City County Line Charles City County Line 106 Roxbury Rd N 75% 1% 1% 4% 19% 0% N N N 2002 New Kent County Line Charles City County Line F 80% 0% 2% 3% 15% 0% F F F 2002 US F 80% 2% 2% 2% 15% 0% C F F 2002 I F 95% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% C F F 2002 SR 249 Charles City County Line F 94% 0% 1% 2% 3% 0% F 0.09 F F 2002 I F 95% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% C F F 2002 SR 249 I-64 East of Bottoms Bridge F 96% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% C F F Quinton F 96% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% F F F 2002 SR 106 Talleysville SR 106 Talleysvlle F 94% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% C F F 2002 SR 155 Carys Corner F 94% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% F F F F 94% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% F F F 2002 SR 30 & 33 Angel View Church SR F 98% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% C F F 2002 SR 33 Year /14/2003 2