Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCPA201900002 Plan - Other (not approved) 2019-08-23Adopted by the MPO Policy Board May 22nd 2019 Planning District Commission Acknowledgments Developing this transportation plan involved cooperation from local government, the public and technical staff. The MPO staff expresses gratitude to those who have assisted with the plan's development and ultimate adoption. MPO Staff • Chip Boyles, Executive Director • Jakob zumFelde, Transportation Planner MPO Policy Board • Ann Mallek, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Chair) • Kathy Galvin, Charlottesville City Council (Vice Chair) » Voting Members • Mike Signer, Charlottesville City Council • John D. Lynch, District Administrator, VDOT Culpeper District • Ned Gallaway, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors » Non -voting Members • Tony Cho, Federal Transit Administration • Kaki Dimock, Charlottesville Area Transit • Travis Pietila, Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee • Julia Monteith, UVA Office of the Architect • Mack Frost, Federal Highway Administration • Brad Sheffield, JAUNT • Rebecca Sial, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit MPO Technical Committee • Juwhan Lee, Charlottesville Area Transit (Chair) • Kevin McDermott, Albemarle County (Vice -Chair) » Voting Members • Julian Bivins, Albemarle County Planning Commission • Jeanette Janiczek, Charlottesville • Chip Boyles, TJPDC • Kaki Dimock, Charlottesville Area Transit • Rory Stolzenberg, Charlottesville Planning Commission • Bill Palmer, UVA Office of the Architect • Charles Proctor, VDOT • Brad Sheffield, JAUNT • Rebecca Sial, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit • Vacant, Albemarle County » Non -voting Members • Tony Cho, Federal Transit Administration • Mack Frost, Federal Highway Administration • Mike Smith, Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Travis Pietila, City of Charlottesville (Chair) Mike Smith, City of Charlottesville (Vice -Chair) » Voting Members • David Hurst, MPO • Mac Lafferty, MPO • Frances Hooper, Albemarle County • Ray Heron, City of Charlottesville • Adam Moore, City of Charlottesville • David Shreve, Albemarle County • Tim Keller, Albemarle County Planning Commission • Gary Heaton, City of Charlottesville Planning Commission • Mike Dunn, Albemarle County • Donna Chen, MPO • Marty Meth, Albemarle County Special Thanks • Wood Hudson, former Transportation Program Manager • Carreen de Cardenas, former Planning Technician • Faruk Hesenjen, former Regional Planner Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Disclaimer This report has been prepared in cooperation with and financed in part by the U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) and Charlottesville - Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, the Virginia Department of Transportation, or the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. This report is not a legal document, and does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Although much care was taken to ensure the accuracy of information presented in this document, TJPDC does not guarantee the accuracy of this information. Acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any recommended improvement, 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 -Discriminatory Statement TJPDC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see http://www.tjpdc.org/transportation/ mpo.asp or call (434) 979-7310. Communication material in alternative formats can be arranged given sufficient notice. Additional copies of this document may be obtained by contacting: 401 East Water Street P.O. Box 1505 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505 (434) 979-7310 info@tjpdc.org www.campo.tjpdc.org 140004 Charlottesville -Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization AIWA POB 1505, 401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org tj pdurg (434) 979-7310 phone + info@t pdc.org email Resolution Adopting 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that each urbanized area over 50,000 population prepare a Long Range Transportation Plan to be updated every five years; and, WHEREAS, a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has been designated for the Charlottesville -Albemarle Urbanized Area; and, WHEREAS, the MPO's 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (2045 LRTP) addresses future planned transportation projects in the City of Charlottesville and the urbanized planning area of Albemarle County over the next 20 years; and, WHEREAS, the major goal for the MPO's 2045 LRTP is to create and advance a balanced, regional, multimodal transportation network; and, WHEREAS, the MPO led the efforts to complete the 2045 LRTP with a public outreach campaign conducted to solicit input from the community; and, WHEREAS, the MPO recognizes that the SMART SCALE evaluation and funding process will guide major project funding decisions made by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB); and, WHEREAS, the MPO has set targets, as required, for the established national performance measures; and, WHEREAS, the MPO's project and scenario evaluation criteria were chosen to reflect the measures used in SMART SCALE and the national performance measures; and, WHEREAS, this update is required to meet Federal Highway Administration requirements, the deadline for which is the end of May 2019; and, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO approves the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan, pending approval from the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Adopted the 22' day of May, 2019, by the MPO Policy Board. ATTESTED: Ann Mallek, Chair Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO Policy Board Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Table of Contents Chapter 1: Regional Demographics................................................2 Overview.......................................................................3 Location........................................................................3 History.........................................................................4 Population......................................................................4 Housing........................................................................6 Education......................................................................8 Economy and Employment........................................................9 Income.........................................................................10 Specialized Communities.........................................................11 Responsibilities and Strategies....................................................15 Growth Projections...............................................................15 Chapter 2: Transportation Assessment.............................................16 Overview.......................................................................18 Roadways......................................................................18 Freight.........................................................................20 PublicTransit...................................................................21 Bicycle and Pedestrian............................................................25 Airport.........................................................................28 Travel Demand Management......................................................28 Chapter 3: Planning for Uncertainty................................................30 Overview.......................................................................32 Changing Technologies...........................................................32 Sustainable and Resilient Transportation Systems.....................................35 Conclusion.....................................................................35 Chapter 4: 2045 LRTP Overview...................................................36 Overview.......................................................................38 Purpose........................................................................38 National Goals and Performance Measures..........................................39 LRTPGoals.....................................................................41 LRTPProcess..................................................................44 Conclusion.....................................................................45 Chapter 5: Transportation Deficiencies Overview....................................46 Overview.......................................................................48 Roads, Freight, Bridges and Intersections............................................48 Transitand Rail..................................................................52 Bicycle and Pedestrian............................................................54 Conclusion.....................................................................57 Chapter 6: Evaluation Process for Roadway and Transit Projects.....................60 Overview.......................................................................62 Identification of Projects..........................................................62 Project Review Criteria............................................................66 Scenario Measures...............................................................70 Scenario Evaluation Process......................................................73 Conclusion.....................................................................78 Chapter 7: Additional Transportation System Elements..............................80 Overview.......................................................................82 Intersections....................................................................82 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Network............................................82 Bridges........................................................................82 Conclusion.....................................................................82 Chapter 8: Transportation Projects Identified........................................84 Overview.......................................................................86 Funding and Cost Estimates.......................................................86 Funded Projects.................................................................87 Constrained and Vision Lists by Category............................................90 Conclusion.....................................................................94 Appendix A: Project Review Pages................................................n/a Appendix B: Public Participation Record of Input....................................n/a Appendix C: VDOT Performance Based Planning and Programming .................n/a 1����-— Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Iv u 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan 1 List of Acronyms AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials NGIC National Ground Intelligence Center ACS American Community Survey NHPP National Highway Performance Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act NHS National Highway System BMP Best Management Practice OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality BRT Bus Rapid Transit PDC Planning District Commission CAT Charlottesville Area Transit PE Preliminary Engineering CLRP Constrained Long Range Plan REF Regional Ecological Framework CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality RTA Regional Transit Authority CSR Center for Survey Research SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act CTAC Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee SHRP2 Second Strategic Highway Research Program CTF Commonwealth Transportation Fund SHSP State Strategic Highway Safety Plan DDI Diverging Diamond Interchange SPR State Planning and Research Funding (used by VDOT to support MPO) DEQ Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia STP Surface Transportation Program DMV Department of Motor Vehicles SYIP Six Year Improvement Program E+C Existing and Committed TA Transportation Alternatives EJ Environmental Justice TCAPP Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships EPA Environmental Protection Agency TDM Travel Demand Management FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency TDP Transit Development Plan (for CAT and JAUNT) FHWA Federal Highway Administration TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 st Century FTA Federal Transit Administration TIP Transportation Improvement Program FY Fiscal Year (refers to the state fiscal year July 1 - June 30) TJPDC Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission GA General Aviation TMPD VDOT Transportation and Mobility Planning Division GSI Grade Separated Interchange TRB Transportation Research Board HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program UPWP Unified Planning and Work Program (also referred to as Work Program) HUD Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of UnJAM United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act UTS University Transit Service Regional transit service provider to Charlottesville City, and Albemarle, UVA University of Virginia JAUNT Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, and Buckingham Counties SOV Single Occupant Vehicle LAB League of American Bicyclists V C Volume -to -Capacity Ratio LOS Level of Service VCTIR Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan, also referred to as 2045 LRTP VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation LRT Light Rail Transit VDRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Executive Summary Housed within the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), a regional planning commission located in central Virginia, is the Charlottesville -Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Composed of the City of Charlottesville and a portion of Albemarle County, the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO is the forum for continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning and decision -making among Charlottesville, Albemarle, state, and federal officials. The MPO collaborates with various agencies, facilitates public input, and conducts its own research and analysis to develop forward -thinking solutions for the region's transportation system. One of the recurrent responsibilities of the Charlottesville - Albemarle MPO is the creation of a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP): a federally -mandated plan that outlines the region's priority transportation improvements over the next decades. The Long Range Transportation Plan is a fundamental document for our community. It states our region's collective vision for the future of our transportation system, and it identifies projects that we anticipate our region will implement in the foreseeable future. The LRTP considers all modes of transportation including private vehicles, public transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and air, and covers other transportation issues such as bridge maintenance and safety improvements. Per federal mandate, the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO's LRTP must be updated every five years. The preceding version, approved by the MPO Policy Board in May 2014, was named the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (2040 LRTP). The updated plan presented in this document has been named the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (2045 LRTP). With the development of the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan, the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO continues and enhances a process for identifying and evaluating transportation projects that began with the 2040 LRTP. Public input played an important role in all aspects of the process, especially the identification of transportation deficiencies and potential projects. The evaluation process leverages the interconnectedness of our transportation system. Rather than assessing the benefits of individual projects in an isolated manner, proposed projects were combined into scenarios, tested as a system, and compared with other project groupings through a method of performance measure analysis. A set of performance measures, created using federal resources, public comment, and committee input, was used to produce quantitative values for project scenarios. With these tools, the MPO was able to determine the degree to which various transportation improvements accomplished the region's vision, goals, and objectives, and select the most optimal project combination for achieving them. The 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan describes the region's characteristics and transportation deficiencies; details the region's vision, goals, and objectives; and describes the method of analysis and its findings and conclusions. The 2045 Plan is organized as follows: Chapter 1: Regional Demographics gives an overview of the region's demographics. Chapter 2: Transportation Assessment provides information about the existing transportation system in the region. Chapter 3: Planning for Uncertainty includes an overview of technological advances and other evolving trends that are making transportation planning more uncertain. Chapter 4: 2045 LRTP Overview gives an overview of the purpose, requirements, goals and objectives of the LRTP, and the public engagement completed as part of the process. Chapter 5: Transportation Deficiencies Overview assesses the regional transportation deficiencies anticipated for our region in 2045. Chapter 6: Evaluation Process for Roadway and Transit Projects describes the assessment process for considering road and transit projects for inclusion in the LRTP. Chapter 7: Additional Transportation System Elements outlines the assessment process for considering bridge, intersection, bicycle and pedestrian projects for inclusion in the LRTP. Chapter 8: Transportation Projects Identified outlines the fiscal -constraint process for the LRTP and provides the constrained and vision project lists. Appendix A: Project Review Pages Appendix B: Public Participation Record of Input Appendix C: VDOT Performance Based Planning and Programming The 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan is a package designed to improve the efficiency and interconnectedness of our facilities and services, and strives to plan for and develop a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive regional transportation system. We invite you to learn more about the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan through the pages that follow in this document. Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Overview..........................................................................3 Location..........................................................................3 History...........................................................................4 Population........................................................................4 Housing..........................................................................6 Education.........................................................................8 Economy and Employment...........................................................9 Income...........................................................................10 Specialized Communities...........................................................11 Responsibilities and Strategies......................................................15 GrowthProjections.................................................................15 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Charlottesville —Albemarle MPO Region Figure 1-2: Charlottesville & Albemarle Populations by Age and Sex Fiaure 1-3: Median Age by MPO Block Group Fiaure 1-4: Sex Ratios (# men per 100 women) Figure 1-5: Racial Composition in Albemarle & Charlottesville Figure 1-6: Renter/owner occupancy Figure 1-7: Urban area rental costs for major apartment complexes Figure 1-8: Vehicle availability for regional households Fiaure 1-9: Educational Attainment for 18+ Population Fiaure 1-10: Poverty Rate by Education for Albemarle & Charlottesville Residents 25+ Years Figure 1-11: Overall Unemployment Rates by local, regional, state and national Figure 1-12: Household Incomes in the last 12 Months in Albemarle & Charlottesville Figure 1-13: Median Household Income in the last 12 Months by Block Group Figure 1-14. Racial Minorities in Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO Figure 1-15: Older Adult Populations in Albemarle & Charlottesville Figure 1-16: Number of People by Disability in Albemarle & Charlottesville Figure 1-17: Median Household Income in the last 12 Months by Block Group, Charlottesville view Fiaure 1-18: Percentage of People living below Poverty Line Figure 1-19: Limited -English Speaking Populations List of Tables Table 1-1: Population Growth Projections for 2045 I Saunders -Monticello Trail, Photo: Peter Krebs/Piedmont Environmental Council Overview To effectively consider the future of the Charlottesville - Albemarle region, the MPO must examine the community as it is currently structured; specifically focusing on location, population, unique elements, and specialized populations. The Charlottesville -Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) region is a diverse and vibrant community. The region is home to the University of Virginia, and boasts one of the most vibrant outdoor pedestrian malls in the nation. Further, its proximity to major urban areas, such as Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA, and scenic rural areas such Shenandoah National Park make the region an attractive place for a variety of people. Location The City of Charlottesville is an independent city surrounded by Albemarle County and located in western Central Virginia, approximately 115 miles southwest of Washington, D.C. and 70 miles northwest of Richmond, VA. Charlottesville is located along the Rivanna River (a tributary of the James River), in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Charlottesville -Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization was formed in 1982 and is federally mandated due to its urban nature and regional population of more than 50,000 people. The MPO area includes the City of Charlottesville and portions of Albemarle County that are urban or expected to be urban in the next 20 years. Political Boundaries Figure 1-1 is provided to help orient the reader with the Charlottesville -Albemarle area. The top map is the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO, broken down by block group. The middle map in Figure 1-1 shows the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's jurisdiction, and the bottom map shows the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO within the state of Virginia. Charlottesville —Albemarle MPO Region (Figure 1-1) r Z P! X trice ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 2 History The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have a long history of rural landscapes, industrialization, growth, and community. The following timeline highlights a few of the major milestones in the region's land and transportation development. 1744 Establishment of Albemarle County 1762 Founding of the City of Charlottesville 1770 Building of Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home 1819 Founding of the University of Virginia 1850 Railroad services established 1866 City streetcar services begin 1885 Union Station (now Amtrak) opens 1927 The first traffic lights start operating in the City of Charlottesville 1936 City streetcar service terminated; tracks paved over 1955 Service began at the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport (CHO) 1976 City of Charlottesville opens a pedestrian mall on a portion of Main Street 1982 Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO formed 2012 City celebrated its 250th anniversary (Timeline 2013; Daily Progress 2013) / Population The total population of the MPO region was 127,659 as of 2015. The following describes specific characteristics of residents in the area. Age & Sex Figure 1-2 shows the distribution of population in the MPO area, which consists of the entire City of Charlottesville and several block groups from Albemarle County, by age and sex in 2015. The age distribution of the MPO, graphed below, reveals specific trends. The MPO has a relatively large percentage of young adults and elderly residents and a lower percentage of children. While age is evenly distributed by sex in most categories, there is clearly a much larger population of 20-24 year olds, as well as 15-19 year olds, and 25-29 year olds. This is due to the presence of students living in the region while they are enrolled at the University of Virginia. Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO Population by Age and Sex (Figure 1-2) Age 85 and over 80 to 84 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to Under 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 Percent of Population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates 1 Age groups 19-22 years and 22-32 years, represented in the lightest shades in Figure 1-3, dominate the areas in close proximity to University grounds. Generally, the population over age 52 is concentrated outside the city. The data in Figure 1-2 above is derived from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey 5-year estimate from 2011-2015. Median Age by MPO Block Group (Figure 1-3) Charlottesville Boundary -I 113-22 3o �1-a4 42-50 51-80 4 Source: U.S Camas, Anrwmw Community Survey,'01S rwe-ye,sr Estimmes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 4 61 Racial Composition The MPO region is made up of people of many races, with about 77% of residents identifying as White (Caucasian), 13% identifying as African American, and about 6% identifying as Asian. Overall, the City of Charlottesville has a larger proportion of residents who are racial minorities compared to the areas of Albemarle County that are within the MPO. Racial Composition in Albemarle & Charlottesville (Figure 1-5) Albemarle County (areas within the MPO Boundaries) 1.4 % 3.4 5.3% 0.3%_ 9.6% 60.6 Housing City of Charlottesville 6.7 0.3) '2.7% 0.2 , 19.2 The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County combined have a total of 63,465 housing units, and the MPO area has a total of 54,289 housing units. Nearly 57% of the housing stock in the MPO area is comprised of single- family detached homes, and 68% of the housing stock is made up of single -unit residences. Almost half of the housing in the combined area was built between 1970 and 2000, and 18% of the housing units were built after 2000. The overall vacancy rate is 11%, which can be attributed to a combination of rental vacancies and units used for short-term rentals (i.e. made available for rental through a platform such as Airbnb). There is a sizable difference in tenant type between occupied housing in the City and County, as depicted in Figure 1-6. Albemarle -Charlottesville MPO 5.8 % _\ 1.0% 3.2% I 0.3%__� White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates Renter/owner occupancy (Figure 1-6) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Albemarle (MPO portion) Charlottesville MPO ■Owner -occupied ■Renter -occupied Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates Affordability of Housing The TJPDC recently created the Regional Housing Partnership to serve as an official advisory board and address housing needs in the region. A Comprehensive Regional Housing Study identified the following facts related to affordability in the region's housing market. • Rents in major apartment complexes in the urban area grew 5.8% annually over the past two years and 4.0% annually since 2012, averaging $1,321 per month, as shown in Figure 1-7. • Nine thousand renter households in Charlottesville and Albemarle (excluding student households) are paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs, with over 4,000 paying more than half of their income on housing. • The median sales price for single-family houses in Charlottesville and Albemarle County was $325,000 in 2017 and $349,900 in 2018. • Limited affordable housing in the region has contributed to many workers commuting from neighboring localities, including 1,400 people from Augusta County alone. • When workers in the region choose to live outside of the MPO to reduce housing costs, transportation costs add to the cost of living as driving alone or carpooling are often the only transportation options. Vehicle ownership Close to 5% of households in the Albemarle portion of the MPO and 10.4% in the city do not have at least one personal vehicle available. In comparison with the City of Charlottesville, the portion of Albemarle County within the MPO area has a higher percentage of residents with 3 or more vehicles available and a lower percentage of residents without any vehicles, as shown in Figure 1-8. The fact that almost 7% of households in the MPO do not own a vehicle indicates the importance of creating a multimodal transportation system that provides many transportation options. Yet the reality that over 90% of households own at least one vehicle makes it clear that driving a personal vehicle is currently the most common method of transportation in the region. Urban area rental costs for major apartment complexes (Figure 1-7) Average Monthly Rent in Competitive Urban Area Apartments $1,400 >_ v $1,300 c 0 $1,200 $1,100 a' $1,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Vehicle availability for regional households (Figure 1-8) 1 o0�io 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30 % 43.0% 37.5% 20% 34.3% 10% 0% 4.7% 6.8% Albemarle Portion ofthe City of Charlottesville MPO MPO No Vehicle Available 1 Vehicle Available 2 Vehicles Available 3 or more Vehicles Available Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates !lan inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 6 IN / Education Figure 1-9 shows the highly -educated population in both Charlottesville and Albemarle. Three quarters of the population between ages 18 and 24 have completed some of their college education, and 54% of the population 25 years and over have completed at least a Bachelor's degree, with an additional 20% having completed some college. Educational Attainment for 25+ Population (Figure 1-9) Albemarle County (areas within the MPO Boundaries) 7.1% 1S Fo% 29.2 % City of Charlottesville 9.8 % 22.2% 26.5% 14.9 % 23.3 % Albemarle -Charlottesville MPO 8.0 % 17.9 % 28.3 % 14.7 o 2 5.1°0 \3.3% Economy and Employment According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data, the average unemployment rate for the combined area of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County decreased between 2011 and 2015 from 5.6% to 3.8% (See Figure 1-11). For all the years between 2011 and 2015, the unemployment rate for the area had been lower than the Virginia state unemployment rate. Both the size of the labor force and the number of employment constantly increased in this period of time . Overall Unemployment Rates by local, regional, state and national (Figure 1-11) 80,000 78,000 76,000 74,000 High school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college, no degree 72,000 Associate's degree 70,000 Bachelor's degree 68,000 Graduate or professional degree Without High School 66,000 Diploma Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates Like the rest of the U.S., the poverty rate for residents 25 years and over rises dramatically without the attainment of a high school degree, from 14% to 21.8%. The poverty rate for residents with a Bachelor's degree or higher is 12.7%, though this rate may be inflated by full-time graduate students studying in the area without a sizeable income. (Refer to Figure 1-10). Poverty Rate by Education for Albemarle & Charlottesville Residents 25+ Years (Figure 1-10) 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0 % 0.0 % Less than high school High school graduate Some college, associate's Bachelor's degree or higher graduate (includes equivalency) degree Poverty Status by Educational Attainment Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates 64,000 7 74 78,110 76,097 75,968 75,971 75,408 72, 551 72,339 71,199 6.1 % 5.2% 2% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Unemployment Rate Virginia State Unemployment Rate Labor Force Employment 20.0 % 18.0% 16.0 % 14.0 % 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0 % 4.0 % 2.0 % 0.0 % Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), 2011-2015 The relative strength of the Charlottesville area is due in large part to its central Virginia location and the nature of the local economy. As the seat of both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County governments, Charlottesville serves as an economic, cultural and educational center in Central Virginia. As the home of the University of Virginia, one of the most prestigious and highly -regarded universities in the country, the City derives a number of benefits, both economic and in the quality of life associated with this area (Charlottesville 2011). The predominant economic sectors are healthcare, education, service -related industries, tourism and hospitality. Some emerging sectors including technology and renewable energy. Some of the area's largest employers include the University of Virginia, the University of Virginia Medical Center, the Martha Jefferson Hospital, Lakeland Tours, SNL Financial LP, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. The National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), National Radio Astronomy Observatory headquarters, Leander McCormick Observatory, and CFA Institute are other notable employers located in the Charlottesville area. Local governments and school boards are also among major employers in the area. �' ��tric Co mission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Income Income level data for the County and City (Figure 1-12) shows that the City holds a greater portion of low-income households. Median household income is $70,342 in Albemarle and $50,727 in Charlottesville, and $66,149 in the state of Virginia. Differences here may be attributed in part to the large student population in Charlottesville. The southwest side of Albemarle County, however, appears to be the most affluent (Figure 1-13). Household Incomes in 2015 in Albemarle, Charlottesville, and the MPO area (Figure 1-12) Albemarle County 3,287, 10 % 4 833, 14 % 2,443, 7% 4,941, 15% 6,708, 20% City of Charlottesville MPO 1,105, 6% 804, 4 4392, 8% 2,402, 12 % 6,245, 18% 3,398, 18% 5,314, 16% 2,753, 14% 4,982, 26% 3, 920, 20 Median Household Income in 2011 by Block Group (Figure 1-13) r k Q charbinear+b [bu�da.y us,fla�-xwAoo / � ssoodt - srs.ncn 575Ao3-$IMDM - SLWA03 . $LSL}AW :'j $L50.oa1 • $2ffloK . 3247, 6 % 0 7343, 14 % IV 9815, 19% 10165, 19% 10106, 19% 8067, 15 % $25,000 and less $25000-$50,000 $50,000-$75000 $75000-$100,000 $100,0001 150,000 $150,000-$200,000 $200,000 and more Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates Specialized Communities The Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO approved its current Title VI Plan on May 25th, 2016 outlining how the MPO achieves Title VI and Environmental Justice compliance. The plan discusses the efforts the MPO makes to include specialized populations in the regional planning process including minorities, the elderly, the disabled, low-income populations, and limited English-speaking populations. The plan also discusses the demographic breakdown of the MPO region and outlines a procedure for filing complaints should any MPO stakeholders feel they were subject to discrimination under Title VI guidelines and accompanying policies, including negative impacts on the health or environment of minority and low income populations. Racial Minorities American cities have historically left minority voices out of planning processes that affect their communities. The legacy of marginalization and segregation is seen in the fact that African American, Asian, and other racial minorities are largely clustered in central areas of Charlottesville and Albemarle, like in many cities in the United States. Figure 1-14, which represents the percentage of residents that identify as White -only, shows the higher concentration of minority residents near the downtown area of Charlottesville. Given the region's history, it is important to target outreach and engagement to reach minority populations. In addition to being racially diverse, the MPO area is also ethnically diverse, with a large Spanish-speaking population and schools with students that speak more than 30 different first languages. Outreach to this community and other more recent immigrants may require materials that are accessible for limited English-speaking populations. Percentage of Residents who Identify as White Only within the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO (Figure 1-14) �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO IN M Older Adults As shown in Figure 1-2 histogram at the beginning of this chapter, nearly 14% (17,305) of the population in Charlottesville - Albemarle MPO area is 65 years or older. Shares of each area's elderly population are broken down further in Figure 1-15. The younger portions of the elderly population represent larger pieces of the secondary pie chart. Older adults may be presented with a variety of barriers that prohibit them from engaging in planning processes. Involving older adults may mean targeted strategies like sending letters, making phone calls, or making neighborhood visits. Older Adult Populations in Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO area (Figure 1-15) Below Age 65 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over JOurce: U.J. Uensus r IMI, LVIo All lerIca n Uon] rlull Ily JUrVey, o-year tsurrla[us Photo: https://www.caba.org.uk/help-and-guides/information/exercise-older-adults Persons with Disabilities In September 2012 the American Community Survey released County- and City -level estimates regarding the disability characteristics of the MPO's population during the 2011 year. According to the 2015 American Community Survey, disability is defined as the product of interactions among individuals' bodies; their physical, emotional, and mental health; and the physical and social environment in which they live, work, or play. Disability exists where this interaction results in limitations of activities and restrictions to full participation at school, at work, at home, or in the community. The questions asked in the 2015 American Community Survey cover six disability types. The six types of disability categorized include: • Independent living difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping (DOUT). • Self -care difficulty: Having difficulty bathing or dressing (DDRS). • Ambulatory difficulty: Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs (DPHY). • Cognitive difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions (DREM). • Vision difficulty: Blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses (DEYE). • Hearing difficulty: Deaf or having serious difficulty hearing (DEAR). Disability status is determined from the answers from these six types of difficulty. For children under 5 years old, hearing and vision difficulty are used to determine disability status. For children between the ages of 5 and 14, disability status is determined from hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, and self -care difficulties. For people aged 15 years and older, they are considered to have a disability if they have difficulty with any one of the six difficulty types. Figure 1-16 provides estimates of these characteristics for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. The total share of the population with disabilities increases with age and estimates skew toward residents living with an "Independent Living Difficulty." Number of People by Disability in Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO Area (Figure 1-16) Independent living difficulty Self -care difficulty Ambulatory difficulty Cognitive difficulty Vision difficulty Hearing difficulty 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates t' ��tric Co mission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 13 Low -Income According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates. Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, 6.5% of residents in the Albemarle County portion of the MPO area, and 10.8% of residents in the City of Charlottesville live below the poverty level (Figure 1-18). Poverty thresholds are the dollar amounts used to determine poverty status by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each person or family is assigned one out of 48 possible poverty thresholds, which vary according to size of the family and ages of the members. Persons living in poverty frequently live in low - resource communities where the outcome of a planning project can be higher risk for residents. Additionally, low-income residents are often not active in planning processes due to limited leisure time and energy outside of work and family responsibilities. Engaging low-income communities that could be affected by planning processes is important because appropriate planning projects have the potential to improve a community's quality of life. Median Household Income in 2015 by Block Group, Charlottesville view (Figure 1-17) t #35,MV '�i3A41-S70-OCO - y — Sshna!-S75fib _ grrra�000 - Sf so,o-x,A* SrSaun- - - Cildrl0#te5vill� �—re+ 0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 20115 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates Percentage of People living below Poverty Line in 2015 (Figure 1-18) Due to the large population of unemployed full-time students at UVA the survey results are skewed. Census block groups on, and adjacent to, the UVA campus have a median household income less than $20,000, likely because a majority of the residents in these areas are students. There are a few block groups (e.g. east of the UVA campus in the 10th & Page neighborhood; in the southeast Belmont neighborhood; and in the westernmost area of the TJPDC shown in Figure 1-17) where the median household income is also less than $20,000, even though there are fewer students that live in these areas. The median household incomes in Albemarle County ($68,449) is significantly greater than the national average ($53,889), and due to the student -populated block groups adjacent to the UVA campus, the median household income in City of Charlottesville ($49,775) is lower than both the national and Virginia state average ($65,015). 12.0 % 10.0 % 8.0 % 6.0 % 4.0 % 2.0% 0.0% Albemarle City of MPO us Virginia (MPO Portion) Charlottesville Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 20115 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates Limited English -Speaking Population Limited English-speaking populations make up approximately 4.7% of the Charlottesville -Albemarle total population. This 4.7% equates to 6,645 citizens in a total population of 139,986. The largest group within this cohort is Spanish-speaking. The percentage of City and County populations that speak limited English are broken down further in Figure 1-19. These populations require targeted outreach in an appropriate language. Limited -English Speaking Populations (Figure 1-19) Albemarle County 8% English as primary language Other primary language; Speaks English "very well" Other primary language; Speaks English less than "very well' Responsibilities and Strategies City of Charlottesville Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates The MPO makes efforts to include stakeholders in both the development and approval of regionally -significant transportation plans; to ensure that its planning efforts are holistic and include all populations that are part of the regional community. The MPO hosted three public input events in addition to two public hearings prior to the approval of the 2045 Plan. There have also been a variety of ways to comment on the plan. Residents were able to provide comments at the events, at MPO committee meetings, through the website comment box, or directly to MPO staff. Also, as a federally -funded agency, the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO has developed a method for receiving and handling complaints should they be made. / Growth Projections The contents of this chapter describe the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO as it exists today. Between now and the year 2045 the population is expected to change both in size and composition. Between the year 2015 and the year 2045, the population living within the MPO is expected to increase by 35.3%. Most of this growth is expected to occur in Albemarle County, with comparatively little in Charlottesville. Table 1-1 shows the population growth projections for Charlottesville and Albemarle (within the MPO) for the year 2045. Population Growth Projections for 2045 (Table 1-1) Charlottesville1 Total 2015 2045 % increase 2015 2045 % increase 2015 2045 % increase 48,326 56,770 17.5% 85,129 123,822 45.5% 133,455 180,592 35.3% Source: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Regional Water Demand Forecasts, August 24, 2011 �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 14 U67 Overview..........................................................................18 Roadways.........................................................................18 Freight...........................................................................20 PublicTransit.....................................................................21 Bicycle and Pedestrian..............................................................25 Airport...........................................................................28 Travel Demand Management.........................................................28 List of Figures Fiaure 2-1: Roadway Classification in the MPO Fiaure 2-2: CAT Monthly Ridership by Route (Oct 2017) Figure 2-3: JAUNT Ridership by Service Type Figure 2-4: JAUNT Ridership by Place of Origin Figure 2-5a: Total Amtrak Station Boardings/Disembarkings for Top Stations in Virginia Figure 2-5b: Charlottesville Amtrak Station Boardings/ Disembarkings Figure 2-6: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure Fiaure 2-7: Existing Sidewalk Infrastructure Figure 2-8: Virginia's Inbound/Outbound/Internal Truck Tons Figure 2-9: Projected Growth in VA Freight Tonnage Figure 2-10: Park & Ride Lots in RideShare Area Overview » Interstate 64 >> State Route 20 This section provides an overview of the regional transportation network, focusing on roadways, bridges, freight, public transit, passenger rail, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and travel demand management. The physical infrastructure and transportation programming in the MPO influence how the existing transportation system is used and informs opportunities for future improvements. Roadways The following section identifies primary roadways in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) region and indicates deficient bridges. Roadway Classification Per the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of traffic service that they are intended to provide. There are three functional classifications: arterial, collector, and local roads (FHWA 2012). Arterials provide the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access control. These roads are typically classified as principal arterials (sub -grouped by Interstate, Freeway/ Expressway, and other principal arterials) and minor arterials. Collectors provide a lower level of service at a slower speed, and provide service for shorter distances by collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with arterials. Collectors are typically classified as major collectors and minor collectors. Finally, local roads consist of all roads not defined as arterials or collectors, and primarily provide access to land with little or no through traffic. VDOT further classifies roadways as interstate, primary, or secondary roads. Interstates are limited access highways that connect states and major cities. Primary roads connect cities and towns with each other and with interstates. Secondary roads are local connector and county roads, and are generally designated with Route numbers 600 and above. Roadway Classification in the MPO (Figure 2-1) Roadways within the MPO The region's road network consists of primary, secondary, and local roads. The MPO region contains only one interstate: Interstate 64. US primary roads within the MPO region include US Routes 29, 250, 22, 20, and 53. These are the most heavily -used commuter and commercial routes (VDOT 2010). A network of secondary roads provides residents with connections to local and regional centers. Charlottesville and urban areas of Albemarle County function as hubs for commercial and economic development within the Planning District. Residents from both the urban core and outlying rural areas commute to Charlottesville for work, shopping, and recreation. The following describes the primary and secondary roadways in the MPO region: Interstate 64 is an east -west highway that connects the region to Interstate 95 (to the east) and Interstate 81 (to the west). The interstate carries through -traffic, but also serves local traffic in Albemarle County, especially during rush hour, making it a key roadway in the commuter network. Residents and visitors use Interstate 64 to access urban centers and other primary roads. >> U.S. Route 29 US 29 is a north -south route that links the region to Washington, D.C. (to the north) and North Carolina (to the south). Within the region, US 29 runs through Greene, Nelson, and Albemarle Counties, as well as the City of Charlottesville, and is the major commuter and truck freight route through central Virginia, connecting Danville, Lynchburg, and Charlottesville. Increased development along US 29 in the Places29 development area of Albemarle County has led to an increase in traffic between the area and Charlottesville. This six -mile section ranges from four to eight lanes and has been the focus of extensive improvements through multiple projects known collectively as "Route 29 Solutions". US 29 to the south of Charlottesville is a less -trafficked, four -lane highway that connects with more rural areas of Albemarle County. » U.S. Route 250 US 250 is an east -west corridor that roughly parallels Interstate 64 and connects the Pantops area, Charlottesville, Ivy, and Crozet. The US 250 Bypass was created to provide an alternative route around downtown Charlottesville. The eastern leg of US 250 in Albemarle County is used by commuters from Fluvanna and Louisa County. Rapid development in Pantops, including Martha Jefferson Hospital, two shopping centers, a large retirement community, and increased residential development, is increasing the amount of traffic on US 250, particularly at Free Bridge. >> State Route 22 Route 22 intersects US 250 at Shadwell and runs east - west through Louisa County. The road runs through the Town of Louisa and handles a moderate amount of local traffic. Route 22 passes through Green Springs National Historic Landmark District and experiences tourist traffic moving through Louisa County to Shadwell: the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson. Another primary road in Albemarle County is Route 20, a rural highway that runs north -south and connects Charlottesville to the Town of Scottsville. Because it is designated by VDOT as a Virginia Byway for its scenic and historic qualities, and is part of the historic "Journey Through Hallowed Ground," Route 20 carries a moderate amount of tourist traffic. >> State Route 53 Route 53 extends from Albemarle County into Fluvanna County and intersects with US 15 in Palmyra. This road, along with secondary Route 616, is heavily used by commuters from the northwest section of Fluvanna County, particularly those originating from the Lake Monticello community. Tourists also use Route 53 when traveling to Monticello and Ashlawn: the historic homes of Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, respectively. >> Secondary Roads The MPO also has a network of heavily -used secondary roads which provide residents with connections to local and regional centers. The City of Charlottesville has a dense roadway network that includes 108.31 miles of secondary roads. Albemarle contains 858.94 miles of secondary roads, 220.20 miles of which are unpaved. Secondary roads provide connections from developed areas, residential, or commercial, to larger scale regional roads or primary roads. Secondary roads are typically more robust than local roads. Examples of secondary roads in the urban area are Rio Road and Hydraulic Road. Bridges VDOT assesses condition for over 100 bridges, and over 100 additional culverts, in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Like roadways, the City of Charlottesville is responsible for bridges within its boundaries while VDOT maintains bridges in Albemarle County. Additional information about bridges is provided in Chapters 5 and 7. �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Public Transit Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) JAUNT Several public transit options exist within the MPO region, including commuter, local, regional and intra-county bus service provided by Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT), JAUNT, and University Transit Service (UTS). In 2017, the Regional Transit Partnership (RTP) was formed to increase communication and coordination between transit providers, and identify regional transit goals and opportunities. The region is served by inter -city bus service provided by Greyhound; and inter -city passenger rail service provided by Amtrak. CAT Monthly Ridership by Route (Oct 2017) (Figure 2-2) 12 Walmart, UVA Hospital, Downtown 11 Fashion Square Mall, Rio Rd, & Downtown 10 Pantops & Downtown 9 Greenbrier & Downtown 8 Barracks Road & Downtown 7 Fashion Square & Downtown 6 UVA Hospital & Downtown 5 Barrack's Road & Wal mart 4 UVA Hospital,Fry's Spring& Downtown 3 Southwood & Belmont 2 Sth Street Station & Downtown 1 UVA-Downtown Free Trolley CAT provides public bus service to the greater Charlottesville area. CAT offers 14 daytime and four nighttime routes, serving an average of 7,500 riders daily during the workweek. Displayed in Figure 2-2, the routes with the highest ridership are the Free Trolley, running from Downtown to UVA (33% of trips); Route 7, running from Downtown to Fashion Square Mall (25% of trips); and Route 5, running from Barracks Road to Wal-Mart (10% of trips). Additional ridership information can be found on the RTP webpage (Monthly Transit Ridership Reports section). CAT serves a variety of groups within the Charlottesville - Albemarle area and offers several fare types to meet riders' needs. Free ridership is offered to children age five and under; youth ages six to eighteen (summer only); and UVA students, faculty, and staff. Reduced fares are offered to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 JAUNT is a regional transportation system for Central Virginia and serves as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service for CAT. JAUNT is funded by Charlottesville, Albemarle, and other local governments, and uses Federal, State, and local funding to supplement fares. Service is available for all residents of Charlottesville and five surrounding counties in Central Virginia (Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, and most recently, Buckingham), and reduced fares are offered for persons with disabilities. JAUNT offers both fixed route and door-to-door service. For door-to-door service, riders must schedule trips by phone or e-mail. The fixed -route services operated by JAUNT include the 29 Express and Park Connect, with a planned service between Crozet and Charlottesville. Figure 2-3 shows annual ridership by service type in Fiscal Year 2016-17, with a total ridership of 322,822. JAUNT's highest ridership was in Charlottesville and Albemarle, as shown in Figure 2-4, accounting for 81 % of rides taken in FY 2016-17. JAUNT Ridership by Service Type FY16-17 (Figure 2-3) 140,000 -1 41% 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 ,tC \aec er �J University Transit Service (UTS) UTS is the transit service UVA provides to its students, Source: 2017 CAT Transit Ridership Data faculty and staff, and the general public. UTS services UVA Hospital and the Central, West and North Grounds of UVA. It also provides service to popular student housing areas, including Jefferson Park Avenue, Grady Avenue, Rugby Road and 14th Street. UTS currently operates six routes. Service hours vary by day, route, and time of year. UTS is funded through student activity fees, so there is no fare collected on board the buses. The general public is also permitted to ride "fare free" through a reciprocal agreement with CAT that began in 2008. JAUNT Ridership by Place of Origin FY16-17 (Figure 2-4) 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% P\�46 c O Regional Transit Partnership (RTP) The Regional Transit Partnership (RTP) serves as an official advisory board, created by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and JAUNT, in partnership with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to provide recommendations to decision -makers on transit - related matters. There are four main goals of the RTP: • Establishing Strong Communication • Ensuring Coordination between Transit Providers • Set the Regions Transit Goals and Vision • Identify Opportunities More information can be found on the RTP webpage �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 20 Inter -Regional Bus Service Greyhound offers inter -city bus service from a station on West Main Street in Charlottesville. Bus service is available throughout the day to destinations including Richmond, Lynchburg, Roanoke, Fredericksburg, and Washington DC, with connections available to other major metropolitan areas (Greyhound). Megabus also offers inter -city bus service, with one daily trip between the train station in Charlottesville to Union Station in Washington DC, where passengers can transfer to other bus or rail routes. Inter -Regional Passenger Rail Amtrak currently operates three service routes from Charlottesville Union Station (CVS): the Crescent, running daily from New York City to New Orleans; the Cardinal, operating three days per week between New York City and Chicago; and the Northeast Regional, offering daily service from Roanoke to New York City. Amtrak's Northeast Regional line has become a reliable transportation alternative for commuters and travelers along the eastern seaboard. Although Virginia is not strictly part of the Northeast Corridor, some Northeast Regional trains continue into Virginia, serving the stations listed in Figure 2-5a. Northeast Regional service south to Alexandria, Richmond, Williamsburg, and Newport News formally began on June 14, 1976. In October 2009, Amtrak extended the Northeast Regional with daily service from Alexandria, VA, via Burke, Manassas, Culpeper, and Charlottesville, to Lynchburg. From late October 2017, this service extended to provide same -seat trips to and from Roanoke, VA. The Washington — Lynchburg service increased by 2.6% in FY 2017 in comparison with FY16, attaining a total of 189,800 passengers. State funding is committed for a second daily train between Roanoke and Washington DC, but this has not been implemented yet due to challenges associated with capacity on the tracks and working with the host railroad company. As evident in Figure 2-5a, the Charlottesville station is one of the top stations in the state in terms of total ridership, and the ridership has been increasing steadily since FY11 as shown in Figure 2-5b (Rail Passengers Association 2018). An evaluation by Amtrak indicated that the current station does not have the recommended space and capacity to handle the high passenger volumes using the station. Total Amtrak Station Board ings/Disembarkings for Top Stations in Virginia FY17 (Figure 2-5a) 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 JP . �\ JP JP JP �a o aia ey�5. ,\�e• yaQ JP p, �Qo ado o° tea\ �9� cF� Charlottesville Amtrak Station Boardings/Disembarkings FY11- FY17 (Figure 2-5b) / Bicycle and Pedestrian An update to the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was approved by the MPO Policy Board in March 2019. The plan seeks to encourage implementation by providing a focused list of regionally -significant bicycle and pedestrian projects that enhance connectivity and provide routes to important residential and economic centers. Charlottesville is a bicycle -friendly city, having earned the League of American Bicyclists' silver designation as a "Bicycle Friendly Community" in 2012. (League of American Bicyclists). The University of Virginia also received a silver designation from the League of American Bicyclists, as a "Bicycle Friendly University." Charlottesville was designated a "Gold -Level Pedestrian Community" by Walk Friendly Communities due to its high rates of walking, innovative planning practices, and a centralized, successful Downtown Pedestrian Mall. (Walk Friendly Community). Nonetheless, the region can continue to increase efforts to improve conditions for people biking and walking. Improving safety is a particularly important aspect noted in the updated regional plan, and relevant for the safety performance measure targets discussed in Chapter 4. Data in the Existing Infrastructure maps on pages 26-27 was assembled from existing facility inventories maintained by Albemarle County, VDOT and the City of Charlottesville. This data was supplemented with an inventory performed by TJPDC interns during the summer of 2017. The existing condition data is not complete and is in the process of being updated. One of the action items from The Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is for Albemarle, Charlottesville, UVA and the Planning District Commission to develop procedures to maintain and share comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and facility data. This will include an online regional dataset and map of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The maps on pages 26-27 show: • Existing Bicycle Infrastructure: This includes all bike lanes, shared use paths and shared roadways. • Sidewalk Infrastructure: This includes sidewalks and walkways. The inventory primarily includes sidewalk facilities that are on public roadways or provide access to major businesses like shopping centers. • Bike Route 76: Bike Route 76 is a designated, national, on -road bike route that traverses the region. It is the only designated bike route to pass through the Planning District. Construction of McIntire Park shared use path bridge, Photo: City of Charlottesville !lan inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO W .& 1 f , } 000e f 1567 ft,4, ld.. GS Figure 2-6 ABOUT THIS MAP: This map provides a contextual reference to the City of Existing Bicycle Infrastructure Charlottesville, the urbanized area of Albemarle County 11 and surrounding area. The map depicts existing bicycle FEATURES 1 Mile IN and Parks and Conservation — Bicycle Infrastructure Lakes and Rivers — Bike Route 76 *} Railroads Planning District Commission 24 e 40 6 Crozet v %%F4 0 �7 f 11 )J& F, {Ai� ♦ 7 a�\ G Ilflr ! ' ` J r� r f1 P. Figure 2-7 ABOUT THIS MAP: This map provides a contextual reference to the City of Existing Sidewalk Infrastructure Charlottesville, the urbanized area of Albemarle County and surrounding area. The map depicts existing pedestrian FEATURES 1 Mile N infrastructure. Parks and Conservation — Sidewalk Infrastructure Lakes and Rivers +}} Railroads Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 25 Freight The identification of freight corridors and preservation of freight mobility is a component of the Long Range Transportation Plan. The MPO is primarily served by truck freight and supplemented by rail service. Truck In the MPO region, Interstate 64 is the primary east -west truck route, transporting goods statewide and connecting neighboring industrial centers. In 2015, the portion of Interstate 64 which runs through the MPO area carried a daily truck traffic volume that is approximately 11 % of total daily traffic in the region. Truck freight also utilizes US 29. US 29 not only serves as the primary truck route in the north -south direction, but also facilitates freight routing changes. One of those routing changes, US 250, also carries significant freight traffic and has become a major shipping corridor in recent years. Maintaining and improving the roadways for such movement is critical to the region's economic development and sustainability. Virginia's Inbound/Outbound/Internal Truck Tons (2012) (Figure 2-8) 2612 Truek TAnnaje WEatensl Three roadways provide primary access to the major commercial areas and business centers at the center of the MPO region: Interstate 64, US 29, and US 250. At times, US 29 has become congested due to traffic volume, hilly terrain, reduced speed limit, and the number of signalized intersections, creating difficult driving conditions for freight trucks. This was one reason why VDOT supported multiple projects known collectively as "Route 29 Solutions". Continued implementation of Route 29 projects is necessary so that Charlottesville does not become a bottleneck for freight on the US 29 corridor. As evident from the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) data shown in Figure 2-8, the highest densities of truck activity are at Virginia's major population hubs: Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Hampton Roads, with concentrations also visible at Roanoke, Lynchburg, and Charlottesville. Around 32,000-34,000 tons of freight are carried through 1-64 in the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO area, with closer to 1,000 tons carried on US 29. Source: U.S. Department o[ Tiansporlalion, Federal Nlghway Administralion, Freight Analysis Framework Rail Freight rail is provided via two railroads which cross at grade in downtown Charlottesville: CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation, two of the largest railroad conglomerates in the U.S. The Norfolk Southern line travels north -south through Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and Nelson County. The CSX line follows a roughly east -west route through Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and Louisa County, carrying primarily empty coal cars. CSX has recently leased its short line to the Buckingham Branch Railroad, the majority of which lies in Louisa County. A second CSX route roughly follows the James River in Albemarle, Nelson, and Fluvanna counties. Both Norfolk Southern and CSX have only a few freight sidings or off-loading sites in the region (CvilleRail). As evident in Figure 2-9, both truck and rail freight in Virginia are expected to more than double from their 2004 tonnage by 2035. Projected Growth in VA Freight Tonnage (Figure 2-9) 250% 226% 210% 200 % 150 % 115 % 113 % 102% 102% 100% 100 % 50% a% Truck Rail Domestic Water Int'I Container Int'I Non -Container Air Total Photo: TJPDC Source: Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study, Phase I �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Airport Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport (CHO) Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport (CHO) is the only commercial service airport in the region. CHO is located eight miles north of Charlottesville and one mile west of US 29 on Airport Road. It is both a general aviation and commercial service airport, offering 50 daily non-stop flights to and from Charlotte, Philadelphia, New York/ LaGuardia, Washington/Dulles, Atlanta and Chicago. The airport is served by Delta, United, and American Airlines. The number of enplaned and deplaned passengers has been steadily increasing since 2013. In Fiscal Year 2017, the number of enplaned and deplaned passengers reached 315,099 and 313,512 respectively, marking a 10% increase from Fiscal Year 2016. General aviation facilities include an executive terminal offering a full - service fixed -base operation, a flight school, and aircraft charter firms. Transportation to and from CHO is generally limited to automobile, although recently -completed bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Berkmar Drive have increased multimodal access to the airport. Daily and hourly parking are available at the airport. Car rentals are available in the terminal facility. Many area hotels provide shuttle service from the airport for guests. Taxi companies also provide service to CHO. ►--�.�rlr��lr Photo: CHO Airport / Travel Demand Management Two programs currently implemented for regional Travel Demand Management (TDM) in the MPO region include RideShare and Park & Ride Lots. RideShare RideShare is a program housed within the TJPDC, in cooperation with the Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission (CSPDC), working to reduce traffic congestion and increase mobility throughout Central Virginia and the Central Shenandoah Valley. Services include free carpool matching, vanpool coordination, and a Guaranteed Ride Home program to provide free rides home in an emergency. RideShare also works with employers to develop and implement traffic reduction programs and advertises the region's Park and Ride lots. There were 521 members in the RideShare carpool matching program and 183 registered users in the Guaranteed Ride Home program as of October 2018 (RideShare). Park & Ride Lots There are twenty-seven Park & Ride lots within the RideShare service area — twenty-two located within the TJPDC, twelve of which are located within the MPO area, as listed in Figure 2-10. Some of these lots are formal facilities managed by VDOT and others are informal lots made available to commuters by businesses or organizations that own the property. Quarterly inventories of the lots are conducted by RideShare. The most active lot is in Waynesboro, with an average of 65 cars each weekday (AUG2). Based on interviews conducted at the lot, and data collected from RideShare, the majority of members parking at this lot are commuting to Charlottesville. The second most active lot is at Zion Crossroads (LOU1), with an average of 40 cars each weekday. Data on commuting destinations was not available for this lot, but Charlottesville and Richmond are likely the primary destinations. Park and Ride Lots in Region (Figure 2-10) Albemarle County ALB1: Maple Grove Christian Church ALB2: Forest Lakes North Health Services Center ALB3: Peace Lutheran Church ALB4: Wal-Mart South Lot ALBS: Mountainside Senior Living ALB& Darden Towe Park ALB7: US 29 South and 1-64 ALBS: Avon Street Extended ALB9: Keene ALB10: Scottsville Augusta County AUG1: Verona AUG2: Waynesboro Town Center City of Charlottesville CVL1: Azalea Park Fluvanna County FLU1: Beaver Dam Baptist Church FLU2: Lake Monticello (Jefferson Centre) Greene County GRN1: Greene County School System GRN2: Ruckersville Walmart Louisa County L0U1: Zion Crossroads LOU2: Gum Springs Nelson County NEL1: Route 6 East NEL2: Route 6 West NEL3: Lovingston Volunteer Fire Department NEL4: Route 655 and Route 151 Rockingham County R0C1: Massanutten ROC2: Elkton - Blue and Gold Dr ROC3: Elkton - Tanyard Bridge Road ROC4: Mt. Crawford N f /1 Charlottesville -Albemarle MPp dark & Ridgy Lot# • � aw M Park & Rlde Lots ■w-. MPO Area LJurlsdictional boundaries • 53 C2 • l t Source: Virginia Department of Transportation Most Active Lots �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Overview..........................................................................32 Changing Technologies.............................................................32 Sustainable and Resilient Transportation Systems.......................................35 Conclusion........................................................................35 Overview This chapter discusses some of the uncertainties related to long-range transportation planning. The chapter provides an overview of technologies and trends that are important factors in transportation planning. Changing Technologies The transportation sector is entering into a period of rapid change and technological disruption. New services such as bike sharing and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) coupled with a move towards autonomous vehicles and connected infrastructure are forces that are reshaping how people and goods move. These new technologies and new modes of transportation have the potential to radically reshape the transportation landscape as they mature. With some of the technologies being new there is very little consensus around how to plan for them and make assumptions for the future. Long-range plans require a planning horizon of 20 years and many of the planning assumptions used for that 20-year horizon are based on historical trends. These trends are changing rapidly and may not be representative of the transportation systems of the future. Therefore, it is important to monitor trends and new developments and adapt the plan to meet the needs of the changing environment. It is also important that local, regional and state decision -makers are aware of these trends and are prepared to embrace or regulate as necessary. Currently both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have been taking action to encourage appropriate use of some of the new technologies described in this chapter. This plan begins the process of understanding the current state of change and provides a baseline understanding of the new modes and technologies. Future plans will have to begin to address the changing nature of transportation. Many of the projects included in this plan are designed to fix current capacity constraints, improve operational efficiency, safety, and mode choice. Therefore, it is expected that the projects will help meet the transportation needs in both the short- and long-term. Transportation Network Companies The MPO area is serviced by two Transportation Network companies (TNCs) / Mobility Service Providers (MSP), Uber and Lyft. These companies rely on online - enabled platforms to connect users and drivers. One of the hallmarks of these systems is the use of non- commercial vehicles. In the Commonwealth of Virginia these are companies that "provides prearranged rides for compensation using a digital platform that connects passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle." This is different from local taxi services, which have provided similar on -demand transportation services to the region for many decades. The arrival of these services has already begun to change some travel behaviors especially with the large university population in Charlottesville whom lack personal cars. As these services continue to grow in popularity there is the potential for planners to need to rethink the design of downtown streets in order to better facilitate drop off and pickup activities at the curb. TNC services are likely to play a small but growing role within the timeframe of the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. Bikeshare Bikeshare programs are one form of innovation reshaping active transportation in urban areas. Bikeshare programs and other shared mobility programs attempt to address the demand for quick and affordable transportation in urban areas. Locally, The University of Virginia bikeshare program, UBike, has been successful since it started in 2015. Nationally, due to increasing ridership of existing systems as well as new systems being built, 35 million bike share trips were taken in 2017, a 25% increase from 2016. The large increase in new systems was partly due to dockless bike share programs being introduced in 2017, causing the number of bikeshare bikes available to more than double. Station -based systems were previously the only available bikeshare option, while dockless systems address the limitation of only being able to ride bikes between stations and needing to know the station locations. Electric Scooters Similar to dockless bikes, many companies are introducing dockless electric scooters. In 2018, the City of Charlottesville approved a temporary Dockless Scooter and Bicycle Policy Pilot Program to evaluate their impacts in Charlottesville. The City provided permits to Lime and Bird, and the first dockless scooters were introduced in December of 2018. While a successful pilot program could lead to scooters becoming a more permanent fixture in the area, the presence of scooters in Charlottesville and other cities has also caused many concerns. If scooters are to remain in use, ensuring appropriate and safe use of them is essential. Appropriate parking of the scooters is also important, to ensure that they do not obstruct sidewalks or otherwise endanger or limit access for pedestrians. Despite bikeshare and other shared mobility programs aiming to provide affordable mobility options, the cost and dependence on smartphones and credit cards can still make them inaccessible to some segments of the population. In order to ensure that bikes and scooters are accessible to everyone, many programs have introduced discounts or subsidized passes for riders based on income thresholds and have options for text -to -unlock features. Given these concerns both locally and in cities across the nation, it is unclear if electric scooters will become a widespread transportation option or if they will disappear in the coming years. Electric Mobility Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are now available either by purchasing one directly or through use of a service such as Lime, which offers a -bikes in some cities. Electric vehicles are also becoming common in the region and nationwide. This growth is expected to continue due to improvements in battery technology that are increasing the affordability and range of electric vehicles, and the recognition that electric vehicles emit fewer pollutants and greenhouse gases than gas -powered vehicles. The need to charge a car, bike or other vehicle adds an additional element to the transportation system, so there is increasing need for local governments to ensure that there are adequate public charging stations. Connected and Autonomous Vehicles Connected Vehicles (CVs) and Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) are two technologies which are likely to significantly impact transportation within the time frame of the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. CVs refer to vehicles which can communicate with one another to achieve goals such as reducing traffic congestion and improving safety. Autonomous vehicles refer to vehicles which can travel independently of a human operator. The precise timeframe for the widespread implementation of these technologies is uncertain with estimates ranging from the 2020's to the 2040's. There is also disagreement on the costs and benefits the technologies will have on the transportation network. Some research indicates there is a potential upside for capacity of roadways, while other predictions indicate a scenario with roads clogged with roving AVs. The technology has several potential benefits such as reduced traffic congestion, increased safety, reduced fuel consumption and travel time, lower insurance and healthcare costs, better city planning due to less need for parking, increased productivity, and improving personal mobility and public transit. The impact of CVs and AVs on commuting patterns is not clear. Some research suggests that they could increase vehicles miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging workers to live farther away from employment and take advantage of their commute time to increase productivity. The impact of CVs and AVs on vehicle ownership is another significant factor. Some research suggests that they will reduce personal vehicle ownership and consumers will use on -demand driverless transportation services for most of their travel. CVs and AVs also have the potential to significantly change transit, freight movement, and other travel. Since autonomous vehicles would not have drivers, costs for transit and freight would be dramatically decreased. The decrease in other limitations, such as required breaks and rest stops, may lead to these vehicles being operational more continuously or for more hours of the day. Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO SOCiETV iJF A JTOM4rivE EN4IHEER5 (SAE} AUTOMAT14N LEVELS There are barriers to widespread adoption of CVs and AVs, such as public safety and privacy concerns from possible equipment failures and cyber security. There is also uncertainty regarding the impact of partial implementation of CVs and AVs which would result in a mixed fleet of driverless and non -autonomous vehicles. Estimates for how long it would take for most of the vehicle fleet to transition from non -autonomous to driverless vehicles are generally more than ten years National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that between 2016-2025 will be the period of partially automated safety features such as lane keep assist, adaptive cruise control, traffic jam assist and self - parking. Fully -automated safety features, such as highway autopilot, are not expected to be in use across a large portion of the vehicle fleet until 2025 or beyond. VDOT has developed a Connected and Automated Vehicle Program Plan and the MPO will continue to monitor systems as they evolve over the next five years. Transit Transit has been impacted, and will be increasingly impacted, by new technologies and their applications. Technology has increased possibilities related to bus -only lanes, and bus priority at traffic signals. Technology also has the potential to make payment of transit fares quicker and easier than in the past. Autonomous transit vehicles, including those being tested in Albemarle County, could dramatically decrease the cost of providing transit service. On -demand mobility is also an opportunity for transit agencies, as they may determine that they can provide improved service and efficiency through replacing low ridership routes withflexible, on -demand service. - 4J dadmmbr 40 Access to real-time transit data, often on cell phones, has made use of transit more desirable for riders. The increase in other transportation options, such as the on -demand mobility services provided by TNCs, may decrease the number of people using transit. It is also possible that the transportation changes discussed in this chapter will lead to fewer households owning cars and an increase in use of transit in combination with other modes. Telecommuting and Remote Work A growing number of area residents are working from home. The latest estimates from the U.S. Census bureau show that approximately 7% (5,402) of residents in the MPO area work from home. A 22% increase since 2010. This data is further supported by a national Gallup survey which found 43% of employees nationally spent at least some time working from home. There are a number of factors that have contributed to an increase in telecommuting. More employers are encouraging employees to telework and advances in technologies have made it more practical. Growth has been strongest in the professional and high-tech sectors. It is expected that the teleworking trend will continue in the region. With the arrival of 5G cellular technologies and an expansion in rural broadband services, a greater number of residents will have the option to work from home, at least part time. Sustainable and Resilient Transportation Systems The region's transportation system is a notable source of greenhouse gas emissions and is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change both in the short- and long- term. Use of gasoline to power vehicles contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, both in this region and nationwide. Albemarle County's climate action data suggests that in the year 2000, the transportation sector was responsible for 52% of greenhouse gas emissions in the county, the largest share of emissions by sector, followed by residential uses (27%) and commercial uses (11.5%). The 2016 Greenhouse Gas Inventory by the City of Charlottesville indicated that transportation sector emissions were approximately 28% of total emissions in the city. A similar proportion came from residential uses (30%) and commercial uses (27%). In order to reduce transportation emissions, it is essential that transportation and land use planning be coordinated. Land use decisions have a major impact on the number and length of trips made in the region, and also impact the mode used for each trip. These land use factors include the density of development and how it is connected to the transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian networks. Strategies that could reduce regional transportation greenhouse gas emissions include: increasing public transit frequency and routes; building more bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; encouraging ride sharing; installation of charging stations for electric vehicles; and increasing the number of people who work from home. Many of these strategies involve changing resident behavior to reduce the number of vehicle trips. Strategies should substantively involve citizens to successfully reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change raises important questions about community resilience and adapting infrastructure for an environment that may have different precipitation or temperature patterns than we experience today. For example, communities in our region, and nationally, have recently been confronted with increases in flooding. Transportation planning in the 21 st century will require increased attention to both resiliency and environmental protection. Roads and parking lots are generally impervious surfaces, which increase runoff, pollution of waterways, and potential for flooding. For these reasons, transportation planning must continue to take steps such as avoiding flood prone areas and maintaining wetlands and inclusion of flood mitigation strategies. / Conclusion Transportation planning currently involves a great deal of uncertainty. The reasons for this uncertainty range from technological innovations to an increasing need for a transportation system that is sustainable and resilient. This was considered as projects were evaluated for inclusion in the LRTP. Rivjam yl Photo: https://www.stanleyconsultants.com/markets- we-serve/transportation/m ulti-modal/ !lan inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Overview..........................................................................38 Purpose..........................................................................38 National Goals and Performance Measures.............................................39 LRTPGoals.......................................................................41 LRTPProcess.....................................................................44 Conclusion........................................................................45 List of Tables Table 4-1: TAM Performance Measures Table 4-2: Pavement and Bridge Performance Measures Table 4-3: Reliability Performance Measures Overview The Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO's 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is a federally -mandated plan that looks ahead three decades to assess future priority transportation projects for the region. The plan considers all modes of transportation including roadways, transit, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and air. This planning process updates the previous plan, the 2040 LRTP, which was approved by the MPO Policy Board in May 2014. This chapter describes the federal requirements fulfilled by this LRTP and the local goals and objectives that were identified as part of this LRTP process. Purpose The 2045 LRTP is a fundamental document for the Charlottesville -Albemarle community. Not only does it outline the region's long-range transportation vision, it also lists projects that the region anticipates undertaking in the next 20 to 30 years in an effort to attain that vision. Requirements from FHWA and FTA In order for transportation projects to be eligible for federal funding, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) require that they be listed in a long-range transportation plan. The Plan must consider the interaction between land use and transportation planning, as well as the environmental impacts of proposed projects. The MPO is required by federal regulation to review the long-range plan every year and update it every five years. According to metropolitan planning requirements, Titles 23 and 49 U.S.C, 2045 LRTP must also contain a financial plan that demonstrates how it may be implemented using both public and private resources that are reasonably expected to be available over the life of the plan. The purpose of the fiscal constraint requirement is to ensure that the total estimated cost of projects and programs included in the plan (the estimated cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining the transportation system) does not exceed the reasonably available estimated revenues. For the purpose of financial forecasting, historical trends are used with respect to estimating resource availability in the context of an uncertain budgeting process. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the MPO cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support plan implementation. It is important to remember that federal and state funds shown in the LRTP will not be available in exactly the same amounts or within the same funding sources indicated in the Plan. The actual funding amounts depend on the federal and state budget process for any given fiscal year. A major component of the current state funding process, SMART SCALE, is competitive across the state and within VDOT districts, making it particularly difficult to estimate future funding. Given the long-term nature of the LRTP, and the degree of uncertainty in the estimation of both costs and revenues, a precise accounting is not required. Other documents, such as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), must demonstrate stricter fiscal constraint, ensuring that in the near term, as costs and revenues become easierto predict, fiscal accountability is maintained. National Goals and Performance Measures Performance Based Planning and Programming requirements for transportation planning are laid out in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), enacted in 2012 and reinforced in the 2015 FAST Act, which calls for states and MPOs to adopt performance measures. Each MPO adopts a set of performance measures, in coordination with VDOT and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (DRPT). These measures are used to help in the prioritization of TIP and LRTP projects. MAP- 21 also established seven national goals, listed below. National Goals 1. Safety - To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads 2. Infrastructure Condition - To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair 3. Congestion Reduction - To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System 4. System Reliability - To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system 5. Freight Movement and Economic Vitality -To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development 6. Environmental Sustainability - To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment 7. Reduce Project Delivery Delays - To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices. National Performance Measures Since passage of MAP-21, federal transportation agencies have gone through several rounds of rulemaking to establish the criteria for the performance measures. The rulemaking process was completed in January of 2017. The nationally -required performance measures include the following: >> Highway Safety (crashes) • Number and rate of fatalities (per 100 million VMT) • Number and rate of serious injuries (per 100 million VMT) • Number of non -motorized fatalities and serious injuries >> Highway Infrastructure Condition • Percent of pavement on the interstate system in good condition • Percent of pavement on the interstate system in poor condition • Percent of pavement on the non -interstate national highway system in good condition • Percent of pavement on the non -interstate national highway system in poor condition • Percent of national highway system bridges classified in good condition • Percent of national highway system bridges classified in poor condition >> Highway System Performance • Percent of person miles traveled on the interstate system that are reliable • Percent of person miles traveled on the non -interstate national highway system that are reliable (Vehicle Reliability Index) • Percent of interstate system mileage providing for reliable truck travel times (Truck Travel Time Reliability Index) • Annual hours of peak -hour excessive delay per capita (not applicable to the MPO) >> Transit Asset Management • Percent of revenue vehicles that have met or exceeded their useful life benchmark • Percent of non -revenue vehicles that have met or exceeded their useful life benchmark • Percentage of track segments with performance restrictions • Percentage of facilities rated in poor condition Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan Measures are currently in the process of being created. The measures will be related to fatalities, injuries, safety events, and system reliability. Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Performance Targets States, MPOs, and public transportation providers must establish performance targets for each of the performance measures. The targets established by VDOT are provided in Appendix C, along with related VDOT planning and programming efforts. MPOs have the option to adopt and support statewide targets or adopt their own. The MPO has been coordinating with VDOT and DRPT to adopt performance measure targets as they become available. The MPO reports its targets to the State and there is currently no penalty if an MPO fails to meet a target. Adopted targets are detailed in the TIP and are highlighted below. Performance reporting will be at intervals specified for each performance measure target. Future plans will indicate whether each target was or was not met. The process used to screen projects for this plan was developed with these performance measures in mind. Project selection and funding decisions related to planned projects are expected to make progress towards achieving the region's performance measure targets identified on this page and included in the TIP. >> Highway Safety (crashes) VDOT established statewide targets in its 2019-2023 Strategic Highway Safety Plan and has been implementing a strategic approach for infrastructure improvements to meet the targets through VDOT's Highway Safety Improvement Program. To achieve the goal of reducing roadway deaths and serious injuries by 50% by 2030 the Commonwealth established measurable fatality and serious injury objectives based on many factors, including population growth, VMT, young drivers and a mode shift toward more bikes and pedestrians. Safety targets are tracked yearly with the target indicating that VDOT and the MPO hope to do better than the target. For example, a target of a 3% increase indicates that an increase is unfortunately expected, but that VDOT and the MPO hope to limit that increase to less than 3%. 2019 targets are listed below: • less than 3% increase in fatalities • less than 1.4% increase in the fatality rate • greater than 1.15% reduction in serious injuries • greater than 2.65% reduction in the serious injury rate • greater than 0.3% reduction in non -motorized fatal and serious injuries >> Transit Asset Management The Transit Asset Management (TAM) rule requires Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grantees within the CAMPO to develop asset management plans. The measures look specifically at the percentage of revenue vehicles that have exceeded their Useful Life Benchmark (ULB), the percentage of non -revenue and service vehicles that have exceeded their ULB, and percentage of facilities with a condition below 3.0 on the Federal Transit Administrator's TERM Scale. All transit agencies receiving grants from the FTA are required to complete a TAM plan. The FTA has established two tiers of agencies based on size parameters. • A Tier I agency operates rail, OR has 101 vehicles or more across all fixed route modes, OR has 101 vehicles or more in one non -fixed route mode. • A Tier I I agency is a subrecipient of FTA 5311 funds, OR is an American Indian Tribe, OR has 100 or less vehicles across all fixed route modes, OR has 100 vehicles or less in one non -fixed route mode. Tier I providers must create their own TAM Plans. The transit providers in the MPO currently fall under the Tier II category and have opted to participate in the statewide TAM Plan rather than developing their own. The measures and targets included in the Tier II TAM plan are included in Table 4-1 below. TAM Performance Measures (Table 4-1) Performance Measure Asset Class 2018 Target Revenue Vehicles Alb- Articulated Bus 20% BU- Bus 10% Age - % of revenue vehicles within a CU- Cutaway 10% particular asset class MB- Minibus 25% that have met or exceeded their Useful BR- Over -the -road -bus 20% Life Benchmark (ULB) TB -Trolley Bus 10% VN- Van 25% Equipment Age - % of vehicles Non-Revenue/Service Automobile 25% that have met or exceeded their Useful Trucks & other rubber tire vehicles 25% Life Benchmark (ULB) Facilities Condition - % of Admin and Maintenance Facilities 10% facilities with a Admin Offices 10% condition rating below 3.0 on the FTA TERM Maintenance Facility 10% Scale Passenger Facilities 10% 2019 Target 15% 10% 10% 20% 15% 10% 25% P417A 25% >> Highway Infrastructure Condition VDOT maintains and operates over 128,000 lane -miles of pavement, representing the third largest network of state -maintained highways in the nation. For the highway infrastructure condition rule, the focus is on 17,136 lane miles of Interstate and National Highway System (NHS) facilities. VDOT manages and implements an automated data collection program for pavements, covering 100% of national highway system pavements annually. VDOT collects and maintains data on all bridges consistent with definitions and requirements of the National Bridge Inventory. For the measures related to pavement and bridges, the State set initial 4-year targets in May of 2018 with the MPO setting 4-year targets in October of 2018. For pavement condition targets, the MPO adopted the statewide targets. However, for bridge condition the MPO has opted to adopt MPO-specific targets based on short-term bridge replacement schedules. Baseline and 4-year targets are included in Table 4-2. >> Highway System Performance The highway system performance measures applicable to the MPO are focused on travel time reliability on the Interstate and NHS system. Reliability is defined as the ratio of longer travel times (80th percentile) to a normal travel time (50th percentile) based on speed data and vehicle volume data collected in 15 minute time segments on a daily basis. Measures of reliability attempt to quantify the additional time that each trip may be expected to take to complete relative to an expected or "normal" travel time. The three required measures use existing national datasets, which may be supplemented by regional or local datasets to estimate the percent of person -miles traveled that are considered reliable. For system performance, the State set initial 4-year targets in May of 2018 with the MPO setting 4-year targets in October of 2018. The MPO has adopted MPO-specific targets, shown in Table 4-3, based on expected local conditions. LRTP Goals Pavement and Bridge Performance Measures (Table 4-2) % Pavement in Interstate 57.8% 45% good condition % Pavement in Interstate Adopted 0.4% poor condition <3% Statewide % Pavement in NHS- non 35.4% 25% good condition interstate targets % Pavement in NHS- non 0.9% <5% poor condition interstate % Bridge area deck NHS -all 12.8% 23.0% 34.5% 33.0% in good condition % Bridge area deck NHS- all 12.1 % 2.0% 3.5% 3.0% in poor condition Reliability Performance Measures (Table 4-3) Person -miles traveled that are Interstate 99% reliable % Person -miles NHS- non ° traveled that are interstate 86.2 /° reliable Truck travel time NHS All 1.13 reliability index 99% 82.6% 82.0% 80.0% 86.8% 82.5% 1.20 1.49 1.56 The following pages provide the goals and objectives that have guided the entire long range transportation planning process. 2045 Plan goals and objectives were developed through a collaborative process involving the MPO committees and the public and were adopted by the MPO early in the LRTP planning process. The Plan goals are informed by SMART SCALE and federally -required performance measures, but are more broadly reflective of what kind of transportation system the community at large would like to see for the MPO area. •la ��tric Co mission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO I • Improve access to transit for all users. Ensure the diverse needs of a changing population are met including the elderly, disabled, limited English proficiency, and persons lacking access to private vehicles. • Ensure the appropriate, types, connections, and levels of freight service are provided to the entire region. • Continue to support efforts to enhance access to inter -regional transit services, to include bus, rail, and air services. • Increase awareness and continue to support RideShare and Travel Demand Management (TDM) services. • Enhance connectivity among and between various modes of transportation through identifying and filling gaps in networks. • Providing a forum for policy discussion among transportation stakeholders. • Improve the effectiveness of the existing transportation network, recognizing internal and external future travel demands from tourism, freight, and commuters. • Assure activity centers are designed to accommodate a range of transportation modes. • Target transportation improvements to support local land use and development priorities. • Identify and prioritize addressing of physical deficiencies, to include pavement, bridges and other multi -modal deficiencies, on the existing transportation network. • Improving communication among stakeholders regarding transportation data, maintenance coordination, best practices, and emerging technologies. Objectives: • Reduce the number and severity of crashes. • Identify key safety deficiencies in regional networks across all modes including the needs of bike and pedestrian users. • Collaborate with law enforcement and other agencies to ensure a safer transportation network. Objectives: • Improve the efficiency of the existing transportation system and services whenever possible. Objectives: • Promote use of alternative transportation modes and alternative fuel vehicles. • Incorporate environmentally/context-sensitive design into roadway, bicycle/pedestrian facilities and transit improvements to improve or maintain the aesthetic values for the surrounding environment. • Avoid encroachment on historic and culturally significant assets and minimize environmental impacts. • Promote the inclusion of minority, low income, and other underrepresented groups in the planning process. ASWIT _ Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO LRTP Process Project Categories In order to work towards the goals identified, the LRTP process included completing or compiling evaluation of multiple aspects of the transportation network. Projects were separated into 5 categories for evaluation, and for the creation of the final constrained project lists. These categories are: • Roadway projects that improve safety and flow for those using vehicles, as well as improving bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure. • Transit projects that increase transit service in the region. • Intersection projects that improve safety and flow for all transportation modes at intersections. • Bicycle and pedestrian projects that create safe and desirable infrastructure for bicycling and walking. • Bridge projects that rehabilitate or replace bridges to ensure the region's bridges remain safe and in good condition. Chapter 5 presents information regarding deficiencies in each of these categories. Chapter 6 explains the process completed to evaluate the roadway and transit projects. Chapter 7 provides information about the remaining categories, and the evaluation that was compiled for use in this plan. Finally, Chapter 8 provides the constrained lists and vision lists for each of these categories. Planning Tools Used The LRTP process used a regional travel demand model to identify needs and evaluate projects and scenarios. The travel demand model uses population and employment information for the region to calculate the number of trips being made and the resulting traffic volumes and bus ridership. The area included in the model was larger than the MPO boundaries, and included portions of Greene, Louisa and Fluvanna Counties. This was done to include the many trips made from these areas, and because it is possible that the MPO boundaries will expand to include these areas after the 2020 census. The model was calibrated with data from 2015, and projections of 2045 population and employment were added to the model. These projections were made for each transportation analysis zone (TAZ), which are relatively small geographic areas which comprise the MPO area. Future conditions, including traffic volumes and bus ridership, were then estimated by the model. The model calculates traffic volumes and bus ridership using the regional transit network and a simplified network of regional roadways. The traffic volumes from the model are used to identify roadway congestion, as shown in Chapter 5. Projects that would increase roadway capacity or provide additional transit service were put in the model. The resulting impacts, including on congestion, safety and mode share, were estimated by the model and used in the project and scenario evaluations described in Chapter 6. The other primary tool used for analysis and mapping for the LRTP process was ArcMap. ArcMap is a GIS (geographic information system) software that has a wide range of map -making and analysis capabilities. Most of the maps and demographic analyses in this document were produced using ArcMap, with most demographic data coming from the US Census and associated American Community Survey (ACS). Public Engagement Input and feedback from local residents has been central to the planning process. MPO staff conducted multiple open houses to seek input from the public on transportation needs and provide citizens with an opportunity to review project scenarios and associated performance measure data. Public Input Sessions Included: Open House 1 (September 2017): Overview of process and regional transportation needs Open House 2 (June 2018): Debut 2045 modeling & input regarding transportation deficiencies Open House 3 (October 2018): Input following Round 1 scenario results Open House 4 (January 2019): Input following Round 2 and Round 3 scenario results First Public Hearing (April 2019): Input on draft plan document Final Public Hearing (May 2019): Final review and approval Other opportunities for public input have existed throughout the 2-year process. These include: • Committee meeting public comment periods • Online comment box • Opportunity for citizens to e-mail or call the office, or mail or drop off written comments Along with the public open houses and public hearings, TJPDC staff presented to the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County Planning Commissions. Presentations were made to each body in October 2018, to the Charlottesville Planning Commission in March 2019, and to the Albemarle Planning Commission in May 2019. The TJPDC recognizes that not all communities and its members have enjoyed the same level of access or representation in transportation and other decisions made by public agencies. Therefore, as part of its public participation strategy, the TJPDC takes steps and measures to reach and engage minority, low-income, and other underserved groups in Charlottesville and Albemarle. / Conclusion The Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO's 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan updates the existing LRTP 2040. To develop this plan, MPO staff worked with the localities and residents to establish future transportation needs for the region between 2020 and 2045. Staff relied heavily on public input as well as recommendations from its committees to prioritize which projects are of higher priority to be funded during the life of the Plan. Federal performance measures, for which targets were recently adopted by the State and MPO, were also considered in the evaluation of projects in this Plan. The subsequent chapters of this document outline the process utilized to develop the lists of projects, with the final lists of projects provided in Chapter 8. Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Overview..........................................................................48 Roads, Freight, Bridges and Intersections..............................................48 Transitand Rail....................................................................52 Bicycle and Pedestrian..............................................................56 Conclusion........................................................................59 List of Figures Fiaure 5-1: 2045 Regional Congestion Figure 5-2. 2045 Local Congestion Figure 5-3. Bridges in Poor Condition Figure 5-4. High PSI Intersections Figure 5-5. 2045 Population Access to Transit Fiaure 5-6. 2045 Employment Access to Transit Fiaure 5-7. CAT Transit Routes Figure 5-8. Transit Access by Route Headway Figure 5-9. 2045 Population Access to Bicycle Facilities Figure 5-10. 2045 Employment Access to Bicycle Facilities Figure 5-11. 2045 Population Access to Pedestrian Facilities Figure 5-12. 2045 Employment Access to Pedestrian Facilities Overview Developing a plan for improving any aspect of the community must start with identifying what elements of the community's system are deficient. For this plan, MPO staff examined how the region's future transportation system would function if no future improvements were planned beyond projects included in the State's Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP) or proffered from local developers. Through this process, MPO staff, working with the MPO Committees, identified infrastructure that is expected to be incomplete or insufficient by 2045. All maps consider the 2045 community condition. That is, the analysis for each mode considers the population total and distribution for 2045; the employment total and distribution for 2045; and the road network for 2045 (i.e. projects that are not yet built, but will be by 2045). Roads, Freight, Bridges and Intersections Roads The majority of the traffic in the MPO travels via the region's roadway system. Overtime, as the Charlottesville - Albemarle region grows, an increasing number of people are expected to use this system, constraining its capacity and resulting in congestion and delays. To ascertain how congested the road system would likely be in the year 2045, the MPO used its travel demand model to forecast where demand on the system is expected to exceed system capacity. The travel demand model identifies these congested areas by calculating a Volume -to -Capacity ratio. The ratio indicates the volume of traffic expected on the road, compared with the capacity the roadway can accommodate. Roadways that are approaching capacity, or are over capacity are considered to be deficient. These roads are mapped in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, showing roads that are expected to experience "Minor Congestion" or "Congested." The MPO used VDOT's volume to capacity ratio standards to define minor congestion and congestion. The capacity identified for each roadway varies based on multiple factors, including whether it is leading to an intersection. While this is helpful for estimating the congestion caused by intersections, it is not a detailed analysis of any specific roadway or intersection. Minor Congestion Roads approaching capacity are those with a Level of Service (LOS) E, which indicates that between 85% and 100% of the road's capacity is being used. These roads are expected to experience minor congestion, which means that they are likely to be congested during rush hour travel but operate at free flow conditions during other times of the day. Congested Roads over capacity are those with a LOS F, which indicates that the roadway is expected to carry more volume than it was built to handle. These roads are expected to be congested throughout the day. » Significance of the Congestion Maps The level of congestion of the transportation system in 2045 was identified for two purposes. First, it was used to identify which areas would likely need improvements to reduce congestion and function more efficiently in the future. Second, it served as a base against which each scenario could be compared. Freight The issue of freight movement throughout the region, while important, is not an overriding concern for regional mobility at this time. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the key freight corridors in the region are Interstate 64 and US 29. Both routes are susceptible to congestion issues that affect general traffic mobility concurrent with any freight movements. Freight movement along rail corridors is also not currently a prevalent regional traffic concern. At this time, rail freight movement in the region travels through the area to destinations outside the MPO's boundaries. While facilitating the movement of goods throughout the region is a priority discussed in Chapter 4, it is not as prominent in the Charlottesville -Albemarle MPO as it is for other MPOs. 2045 Regional Congestion (Figure 5-1) 2045 Local Congestion (Figure 5-2) Legend Congestion Minor Congestion Congested r �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 49 Bridges Safe and adequate bridges are a vital component for a fully functional transportation system. Using VDOT bridge condition reports, the entire region of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville was reviewed to identify the condition of each bridge and assess the need for improvements. For the federal performance measure, bridges are categorized as "good", "fair", or "poor," and determined by the worst condition of the deck, superstructure and substructure. Given this, a bridge in poor condition does not mean dangerous conditions and may not even require a full replacement. Bridges in Poor Condition (Figure 5-3) 809 809 g000 . ♦ 004 6261 ♦ 1*1810 1 8 18 6401 18011801 1024 Legend ♦ Poor Bridge or Culvert "Charlottesville 0 1 2 4 Miles Bridges that have been identified as being in poor condition are identified in Figure 5-3 below, with VDOT structure ID numbers shown on the map. A list of these bridges, including those where improvements are already funded and those where funding is needed for improvements, is provided in Chapter 8. 9011 6261' ead H;1. Exit 114 6401 UVA 1 D :1 5th St Exit 118 Static 6229 • 1 Biscuit Run Park Source: Virginia Department of Transportation Sufficiency Ratings Riot 1 Exit 124 Intersections Intersections are a central concern in the MPO, as intersections are primary areas of congestion, locations where many crashes occur, and barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel. VDOT evaluates intersections to identify potential for safety improvement (PSI) locations. This evaluation is based on the number of crashes that occured at each intersection over the most recent 5-year period. The intersections in the region that have the highest PSI scores are shown below, indicating the most potential benefit from improvements. A list of intersections identified for improvement, or already funded, is provided in Chapter 8. High PSI Intersections (Figure 5-4) O� 6 FM u Legend "Charlottesville 4 Intersection PSI (Safety) 0 1 2 4 Miles 0 Boar's Head Exit 114 Exit 118 Park u CHO Airport Hollymead O G$J �' 1 inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO �� Transit and Rai Transit The MPO's transit system is relatively robust compared to other small regions in the state. As discussed in Chapter 2 (Existing Conditions), three transit entities serve the MPO: Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT), run by the City of Charlottesville with additional contributions coming from Albemarle County; University Transit Service (UTS), run by the University of Virginia; and JAUNT, which provides transit and para-transit service for several contiguous counties in the region including the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. To determine transit deficiencies in the region, MPO staff considered regional transit services that have identified stops. As such, CAT and UTS routes are included while shuttle -style services, such as JAUNT's 29 Express and Park Connect services, are not included. The CAT route map is provided as Figure 5-7 on page 54. 2045 Population Access to Transit (Figure 5-5) ._ .i irozet .7 - Legend+ • Bus Stops Bus Stops access Water Bodies Population Density People per square mile 0.000 - 1000 w 1001 - 3000 - 3001 - 6000 - 6001 - 10000 - 10010 - 66630 Transit Accessibility to Population and Employment Maps The travel demand model's 2045 population and employment data was used to map the population and employment densities forecast for each zone. Dark shades of blue indicate densely populated zones, while light shades of blue indicate sparsely populated zones. (Refer to Figure 5-5). Similarly, dark shades of red indicate zones with considerable employment opportunities, while light shades of red indicate zones with few employment opportunities. (Refer to Figure 5-6). The existing bus stop locations for UTS and CAT routes were added to the maps, as future bus stop locations for 2045 cannot be anticipated. The existing bus stops for UTS and CAT were buffered using a one -quarter mile radius, and the population or employment within a one -quarter mile buffer of transit stops was calculated to determine what percentage of the population or employment in 2045 would have access to transit. In this analysis, all stops are considered equally, although some routes have a frequency as low as one bus per hour. The scheduled time between buses arriving at a stop is referred to as headway, and a map of transit access with bus headway information is shown in Figure 5-8 on page 55. The frequency of service is taken into account in the evaluation described in Chapter 6, and must be considered in any regional transit planning effort. Within the MPO, approximately 47% of the population and 71% of employment opportunities are located within a one -quarter mile radius of a bus stop. This indicates that there is the opportunity to expand service to a larger proportion of residents, and also opportunities to increase use of transit by residents who live close to existing transit services. These maps are useful for identifying the general areas that would benefit from additional transit service. 2045 Employment Access to Transit (Figure 5-6) Legend • Bus Stops Bus Stops access Water Bodies Employment Density Employment per square mile 0.000 - 1000 1001 - 3000 - 3001 - 6000 - 6001 - 10000 - 10010 - 103400 v Darker shaded areas without bus stops indicate areas where expanded service is expected to perform well due to the high concentration of residents or employment opportunities in these areas. Rail In reviewing regional rail service, it is clear that additional service is important; particularly early morning service that supports business travel between the region and Washington D.C. and other areas in the northeast corridor. As noted in Chapter 2, an evaluation by Amtrak indicated that the current station does not have the recommended space and capacity to handle the high passenger volumes using the station. Passenger rail service, while important for the region, is not a mode that can be fiscally -constrained within the LRTP process. Advance Mills , Hpllymeadi{ - ' � Wd�dbrook e •. 1 1•._•'�'•t • •• M•. �S h '• •fit• I,� , �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 52 53 CAT Transit Routes (Figure 5-7) P—I� Tt— IN Downtown Transit S/) Station Park 5 Shopping (( S \` Location ♦ Atademir Institution Maior 29 Poadway Point of r Interest � Amtrak e, � Loration Hospital /\\ / Park and O. Ride r S Golf b Course JUUM. Ullal IULLU vMlle HICd IIdIIJII O Downtown Mall © Rio Hill Shopping Cen ©Barracks Road O Zgth Place Shopping Center Willoughby5quare Albemarle5quare Shopping Center Shopping Center OFashion Square all O Preston Plaza O Seminole Square © Cherry Avenue ent Shopping Cer Shopping Center O UVA Corner © Panto Ps ShoPPMg Center Transit Access by Headway (Figure 5-8) P! � trice ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 54 55 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bicycle The MPO's bicycle network includes bike lanes, shared The MPO's bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is use paths, and shared roadway facilities. The analysis relatively robust and offers benefits for recreation and some focuses on existing, designated bicycling facilities and transportation trips. Yet the current network is not extensive does not focus on areas that do not have these facilities, or connected enough to be a viable transportation option for but are in fact bikeable due to the nature of the roadway. most of the 2045 MPO's population and employment base. It includes all existing bicycle infrastructure that has been Public outreach completed as part of the Jefferson Area identified, although the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan indicated that the community identified the need for improved infrastructure in many of appreciates existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in these corridors. Many bike lanes and shared roadways the region, but residents have a strong desire for additional in the region are on roads with speed limits of 35 or 45 infrastructure. Creation of a more connected network would mph. In these places, protected bike lanes and shared increase the desirability of bicycling and walking, for both use paths could dramatically increase safety and comfort transportation and recreation, in the region. The updated for people riding bicycles. Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan indicates the efforts needed to create an extensive, connected network. » Bicycle Accessibility to Population and Employment Maps The travel demand model's 2045 data was used to map the population and employment densities forecast for each zone. Dark shades of blue indicate densely populated zones while light shades of blue indicate sparsely populated zones. (Refer to Figure 5-9). Similarly, dark shades of red indicate zones with considerable employment opportunities while light shades of red indicate zones with few employment opportunities. (Refer to Figure 5-10). Existing bicycle facilities were added to each map (thin black lines) along with a 500-foot buffer. The population or employment within 500 feet was calculated to determine what percentage of the population or employment in 2045 would have relatively easy access to bicycle facilities. 2045 Employment Access to Bicycle Facilities (Figure 5-10) AF ,+ I L ■ _ `fCroze� Ya ills F Legend Bicycle Infrastructure Bicycle Infrastructure access Water Bodies Employment Density Employment per square mile 0.000 - 1000 L 1001 - 3000 - 3001 - 6000 - 6001-10000 - 10010 - 103400 .YM1 Within the MPO, approximately 29% of the projected population and 47% of employment opportunities are located within 500 feet of a bicycle facility. However, regional biking tends to be limited to smaller zones due to barriers that prohibit bicycling beyond these areas. These maps are useful in identifying the general areas that would benefit from improved connectivity. . I I I � - -; .Y r i 1 � �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 56 57 Pedestrian Nearly every trip includes some walking, whether walking to the bus, to a vehicle in a parking lot, or traveling to the destination on foot. The MPO's pedestrian network includes sidewalks and walkable areas, such as the Downtown Pedestrian Mall. This analysis focused on access to this walkable network. » Pedestrian Accessibility to Population and Employment Maps The travel demand model's 2045 population and employment data was used to map the population and employment densities forecast for each zone. Dark shades of blue indicate densely populated zones, while light shades of blue indicate sparsely populated zones. (Refer to Figure 5-11). Similarly, dark shades of red indicate zones with considerable employment 2045 Population Access to Pedestrian Facilities (Figure 5-11) t Ya eel }lls Legend Pedestrian Infrastructure Pedestrian Infrastructure access Water Bodies Population Density People per square mile 0.000 - 1000 1001 - 3000 3001 - 6000 - 6001 - 10000 — 10010 - 66630 opportunities, while light shades of red indicate zones with few employment opportunities. (Refer to Figure 5-12). The existing pedestrian facilities were added to the maps and then buffered using a distance of 200 feet. The population or employment within 200 feet of pedestrian facilities was calculated to determine what percentage of the population or employment opportunities in 2045 would have access to a sidewalk or walkable area. Within the MPO, approximately 46% of the population and 60% of employment opportunities are located within 200 feet of a pedestrian facility. The regional pedestrian network, while extensive, is missing links or extensions that would make the network more effective for the region. These maps are useful in identifying the general areas that would benefit from improved pedestrian connectivity. Effort is also necessary to improve conditions on existing sidewalks, as many sidewalks are narrow or difficult to use due to impediments such as utility poles. -t- } / 70 V + ..41 K4. ' 2045 Employment Access to Pedestrian Facilities (Figure 5-12) =e� bf 4 Legend Pedestrian Infrastructure Pedestrian Infrastructure access Water Bodies Employment Density Employment per square mile 0.000 - 1000 1001 - 3000 - 3001 - 6000 - 6001 - 10000 _ 10010 - 103400 / Conclusion The transportation deficiency analysis provided the MPO with information about transportation improvements to be considered for the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. From this analysis, staff learned that roadway improvements need to be targeted at key locations throughout the region such as the US 29/US 250 Bypass or US 250 at Pantops. Regarding transit improvements, the ongoing work of the Regional Transit Partnership will be valuable in identifying priorities for the transit system. As part of the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, staff determined that access via bike facilities is limited by significant barriers prohibiting connectivity, despite reasonable access to facilities within the urban core. Likewise, staff established that the pedestrian network is missing key links that could provide greater accessibility. Mlle N When doing these analyses, it became clear that additional efforts are necessary to collect and coordinate data, particularly related to bicycle, pedestrian and transit networks and usage. Many of these efforts have begun, and will be essential for understanding and improving the region's multimodal transportation network. Staff used this information, along with recommendations from other plans, to develop an initial list of proposed roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects targeted at improving these areas. Potential roadway and transit projects were modeled to evaluate their potential impacts and benefits for the community. These projects are discussed further in Chapter 6. Bicycle and pedestrian projects were taken from the 2019 Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Intersection and bridge projects were identified based on VDOT and locality evaluations. These projects are discussed further in Chapter 7. �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 58 Overview..........................................................................62 Identification of Projects.............................................................62 Project Review Criteria..............................................................66 Scenario Measures.................................................................70 Scenario Evaluation Process.........................................................72 Conclusion........................................................................78 List of Figures Fiaure 6-1: Transit Projects Considered Fiaure 6-2: Roadway Projects Considered Figure 6-3: Project Review Page Template Figure 6-4: Identified Activity Centers Figure 6-5: Creation of Scenarios for Round 1 Fiaure 6-6: Round 1 Scenario Evaluation Graphic Fiaure 6-7: Creation of Scenarios for Round 2 Fiaure 6-8: All Scenarios Evaluation Graphic List of Tables Table 6-1: Roadway Projects Considered Table 6-2: Transit Projects Considered Table 6-3: Scenario Performance Measures Table 6-4: Round 1 Scenario Evaluation Results Table 6-5: All Scenarios Evaluation Results Table 6-6: Project List and Scenario Evaluation Overview Performance measures provide a quantitative value for potential transportation improvements. Using performance measures allows for future investment and infrastructure scenarios to be evaluated objectively and compared against one another in order to understand which groupings of projects will generate the greatest benefit for the region. The use of performance measures has become transportation planning best practice. As discussed in Chapter 4, MPOs must demonstrate compliance with MAP-21 national goals and performance measures. The MPO's use of performance measures ensures that the MPO meets the federal performance - based planning requirements. This chapter explains the projects that were considered, the performance measures and evaluation processes used, and the multiple rounds of scenario evaluation that were completed. This process resulted in a preferred scenario of projects, all of which are included in the constrained or vision project lists provided in Chapter 8. As with all quantitative measurement systems, the MPO's evaluation process was limited by available data, tools and resources. Even with these limitations, the MPO developed a robust set of 10 scenario performance measures and 7 project review categories to evaluate roadway and transit projects. Information about the project review criteria are described and summarized in Figure 63. Following that, the scenario performance measures are provided and summarized in Table 6-3. All aspects of evaluation are related to the LRTP goals provided in Chapter 4. This chapter provides details about the roadway and transit projects that were evaluated and the results of those evaluations. The primary purpose of this evaluation process was to provide information to the MPO Policy Board to determine regional roadway and transit priorities. This chapter only addresses roadway and transit projects, as information regarding intersection, bridge, and bicycle and pedestrian projects is provided in chapter 8. Though in most cases the roadway projects evaluated include bicycle, pedestrian and intersection improvements. Identification of Projects MPO staff created a list of projects to consider for inclusion in the LRTP by looking through previous plans and studies completed by localities or the MPO, including the CAT and JAUNT Transit Development Plans (TDPs) that were in the process of being created. MPO staff also met with locality staff to ensure all priority roadway and transit projects were being considered. A public open house was held to review the projects and the MPO committees (MPO Tech, CTAC and the Policy Board) also reviewed the projects proposed for evaluation. Following this review process, staff proceeded with the project and scenario evaluation processes that had been approved by the MPO committees. The roadway and transit projects that were considered are shown on the next page in Figures 6-1 and 6-2, and listed in Tables 6-1 and 62. All project descriptions and locations were estimated for evaluation purposes and do not reflect exactly what may be implemented if projects are funded. Roadway Projects Considered (Table 6-1) ID Name Description US 29/US 250 R1 Widen the bypass from 4 to 6 lanes from 1-64 (exit 118) to the interchange with Barracks Road. Bypass widening US 250 widening - Widen US 250 from 2 to 4 lanes from 1-64 (exit 124) to Milton Rd. Roadway would include a median R2 Shadwell and a shared use path. Multiple projects, as identified by the Hydraulic/29 planning process. Improvements include: grade- Hydraulic and US separated intersection (GSI) at Hydraulic/29, roundabouts at Hydraulic/Hillsdale and R3 29 Area Projects Hydraulic/District, Hillsdale extension to bypass and reconstruction of bypass ramps, and construction of bridges over US 29 at Zan Road (overpass) and Angus Road (GSI). Improve traffic flow and safety at the Fontaine/Bypass interchange through creation of a diverging Fontaine/Bypass R4 diamond interchange (DDI). The project will provide bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure for crossing Interchange the bypass. Widen Free Bridge and the adjacent segment of US 250 (from St. Clair Ave to Flow Volkswagen) from US 250 and Free R5 4 lanes to 6 lanes. Project involves construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge adjacent to Free Bridge widening Bridge. West Main Street Reconstruct the West Main Street streetscape, including corridor and intersection changes that R6 Multimodal improve traffic safety and flow, transit stops, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. Route 20 Make upgrades that improve safety, traffic flow, and multimodal infrastructure on Route 20 from Mill R7 Multimodal Creek Drive to Route 53. Rio Road Make upgrades that improve safety, traffic flow, and multimodal infrastructure on Rio Road from R8 Multimodal John Warner Parkway to Park Street. Fifth/Ridge/ Make upgrades that improve safety, traffic flow, and multimodal infrastructure on the R9 McIntire Fifth/Ridge/McIntire corridor from the US 250 bypass south to the city/county line. Multimodal Avon Street Make upgrades that improve safety, traffic flow, and multimodal infrastructure on Avon Street from R10 Multimodal Mill Creek Drive to Palatine Ave. Would include a bicycle and pedestrian bridge across 1-64. Berkmar Drive Extend Berkmar Drive from current extent to Lewis and Clark Drive. Would include 2 lane roadway R11 Extension with bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Sunset/Fontaine Construct a new roadway from Sunset Avenue Extended to Fontaine Avenue, including R12 improvements to Stribling Avenue. Would include 2 lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian Connector infrastructure. Eastern Avenue Extend Eastern Avenue South to US 250. Would include new or upgraded 2 lane roadway with R13 (Crozet) bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Old Lynchburg Make upgrades that improve safety, traffic flow, and multimodal infrastructure on Old Lynchburg R14 Multimodal Road from Singleton Lane to the City/County line. Ivy Road Make upgrades that improve safety, traffic flow, and multimodal infrastructure on Ivy Road from R15 Multimodal - East Canterbury Road to Old Ivy Road. R16 1-64 Truck Lanes Widen 1-64 from 4 to 6 lanes from exit 118 to exit 114. Ivy Road Make upgrades that improve safety, traffic flow, and multimodal infrastructure on Ivy Road from R17 Multimodal - West Kirtley Lane to Canterbury Road. Hillsdale Drive to Construct a new road to realign Hillsdale Drive to connect with Rio Rd near the Putt Putt Place R18 Rio Road intersection. Would include 2 lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. South Pantops Construct a new bridge and roadway to connect High Street to South Pantops Drive. Would include a R19 Drive Bridge 2 lane roadway and shared -use path. Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Transit Projects Considered (Table 6-2) ID Name Description Create an express bus service, potentially BRT, along the US 29 corridor from T1 Express Bus on US 29 downtown, through UVA, to CHO airport and Rivanna Station. Buses run every 15 Corridor minutes. Commuter bus to Commuter bus service from downtown, through UVA, to Ivy and Crozet. Peak -hour T2 Crozet service only, buses run every 30 minutes. Create new route from downtown, along 5th Street, through 5th Street Station, T3 Bus route to along Avon St., along Mill Creek Drive, and north on Rte 20 to PVCC. Buses run Avon/Mill Creek every 30 minutes. Increased bus service Add new route to provide additional service across Free Bridge. Change Route 10 T4 to Pantops alignment. Buses on both routes run every 30 minutes. Fontaine Research Extend UTS route to provide service from UVA to Fontaine Research Park. Buses T5 Park bus route run every 10-30 minutes. Transit Projects Considered (Figure 6-1) Legend Potential Transit Routes Route Avon Street (T3) Crozet Commuter (T2) Express Bus (T1) Fontaine Research Park (T5) Pantops (T4) r r • r • t iF y ca � ■ IAm i 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 o f 0 T{ - jr2 All project descriptions and locations in this document, particularly the potential location of transit stops, were estimated for evaluation purposes and do not reflect exactly what may be implemented if projects are funded. Roadwav Proiects Considered (Figure 6-2) Crozet ,. Legend Potential Roadway Projects N k R16 4 w AP .1"_ affi� Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 65 Project Review Page Template (Figure 6-3) / Project Review Criteria In addition to scenario evaluation criteria, the MPO developed project review criteria. The project review criteria were used to describe each roadway and transit project and provide an overview of potential impacts a project may have on the transportation network, environment and community. Project review information was collected for each of the 19 roadway projects and five transit projects evaluated for inclusion in the constrained list. The information was used by the MPO Policy Board to inform their selection of projects for scenario evaluation. The project review pages for all considered roadway and transit projects are provided in Appendix A. The first section of the project review page provides calculations related to congestion mitigation, transit access and bike/ped improvements. This information indicates major benefits of each project, and is related to the performance measures used for the scenario evaluation. » Environmental Design For this evaluation, it was identified whether the project would include Complete Streets elements such as street trees, bus shelters or other amenities. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure was not included with this evaluation, as information regarding whether each project included such infrastructure was provided separately. >> Environmental Impacts Seven environmental categories were identified and evaluated for each project: 1. Wetlands 2. Endangered Species 3. Flood Plain 4. Scenic Rivers 5. Conservation Easements 6. Conservation Lands and Parks 7. Historical Sites To identify potential impacts of LRTP projects, the acreage of land designated as each category was calculated, except for the scenic river and historic site categories. Acreage was calculated by estimating roadway widths based on type and number of lanes. Lengths and widths of road segments were added into GIs, which allowed MPO staff to calculate the area of projects that could potentially impact each category. Existing roadway area was included in the calculation, so acreage impacted will likely be less than the calculations indicate. » Wetlands Calculations were done using the National Wetlands Inventory from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Wetlands Inventory is a public resource that provides information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of US wetlands. » Endangered Species Data used is from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Natural Heritage Program. >> Flood Plain 100-year flood plain data was sourced from Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. Flood plain data is maintained by FEMA and is available online at http://www.floodsmart.gov. >> Scenic Rivers Potential impacts to scenic rivers were determined by identifying the presence of scenic rivers that might be impacted by the Long Range Transportation Plan projects. The data used Scenic Rivers identified as Potential and Qualified by the Scenic Rivers Program that is maintained by The Department of Conservation and Recreation. The program has identified and designated rivers and streams that possess outstanding scenic, recreational, historic and natural characteristics of statewide significance for future generations. >> Conservation Easements Data came from the Department of Conservation and Recreation's Virginia Conservation Lands Database. >> Conservation Land and Parks Data came from the Department of Conservation and Recreation's Virginia Conservation Lands Database. >> Social Impacts The number of residents who live within 500 feet (roadway) or 1/4 mile (transit) of a project was estimated. Additionally, the number of residents who are minority, in poverty, older than 65 or have limited English proficiency was calculated. Impacts to schools were based on a tally of the total number of schools immediately adjacent to the Long Range Transportation Plan project. All public and private schools from preschool through grade 12 were included in this evaluation. Importantly, the information provided in this section may indicate negative impacts (increased exposure to air pollution) or positive impacts (increased multimodal transportation options for residents), so the numbers are provided for decision -makers to interpret. • At Congestion Transit Access 01V O Bike/Ped Projected change in # of vehicle -hours of delay (model) Change in transit access measure Length of bicycle and pedestrian improvements Project Impacts Environmental Incorporates Complete Streets elements that aren't in measures (street trees, Design bus shelters, benches or other amenities). List potential elements included. Environmental Potential project impact on wetlands, floodplains, park lands, scenic rivers, Impacts land under conservation easement, and endangered species habitat. Quantative values presented, with qualitative description if necessary. Estimated number of individuals who are minority, in poverty, older than 65, Social or have limited English proficiency, and live within 500 feet of the project (1/4 Impacts mile from a stop for transit). Quantative values presented. Total population of the MPO area is approximately 118,000. Historical Site List of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sites potentially impacted Impacts by the project. Site information presented, with qualitative description if necessary. Inter -regional Impact on corridors that are identified by VDOT as part of the National corridors Highway System (NHS). Qualitative description. Inter -regional transit Impact on inter -regional transit. Qualitative description. Maintenance Project creates a new bridge or includes deficient bridge(s). Project includes and location(s) that VDOT has identified as having a high potential for safety Safety improvement (PSI). Icons•m flaticon.com made by !lan inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO » Historical Site Impacts Impacts to historical sites were based on a tally of the total number of sites adjacent to the Long Range Transportation Plan projects. This analysis was conducted using the Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS) provided by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Sites accounted for included eligible, potential, and NRHP sites. As with the social impacts, information provided in this section may indicate negative impacts (damage from increased traffic) or positive impacts (increased multimodal access to the site), so the numbers are provided for decision -makers to interpret. >> Inter -regional corridors Impacts on corridors that VDOT has identified as part of the National Highway System (NHS) were determined and explained. Fifth Street at Ridge Street, Photo: TJPDC >> Inter -regional transit Impacts on inter -regional transit were identified, including directly improving access to the regional airport, rail station and bus station. >> Maintenance and Safety As described in previous chapters, ensuring good bridge condition and a safe multimodal transportation system are important for the MPO, and the MPO has set targets for the related national performance measures. In this project review, it is identified whether a project creates a new bridge or includes a bridge in poor condition (although the cost estimate may not include the bridge improvement.) Projects that include locations that VDOT has identified as having a high potential for safety improvement (PSI) are also included, and these projects would likely improve safety at these locations. Free Bridge, Photo: TJPDC F 91 Fifth Street south of 1-64, Photo: TJPDC YJ4� �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 68 Scenario Measures Congestion Measure One measure, vehicle -hours of delay, was used to evaluate the congestion impact of each scenario. >> Vehicle -Hours of Delay Vehicle -hours of delay was estimated using the regional travel demand model. The model calculated this based on values for both free -flow and congested travel times. Congestion in the model is primarily determined as the ratio of the modeled traffic volume to the capacity identified for each road. Therefore, as the volume on a road approaches the capacity of the road, vehicles traveling on the road have increased travel times. Accessibility Measures Three measures assesses Accessibility and Mobility 1. Resident access to transit 2. Average commute time (driving) 3. Access to mode transfers » Resident Access to Transit Resident access to transit included an evaluation of the total population close to transit stops, as well as calculation of disadvantaged populations close to transit stops. The sub -categories are listed below, with the values for all sub -categories added together to create a value for the measure. For total population, the 2045 population projections (by TAZ) were used. The data used for the other sub -categories came from the American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2016). All analyses exclude stops that are only served during the peak -hour (rush hour) by commuter bus routes. 1. Total population within 1/4 mile of a transit stop, adjusted for bus headway Recognizing that bus routes with lower headways (the scheduled time between buses) provide improved transit access, the population near each stop was adjusted based on the headway. Specifically, the population value was multiplied by two if the peak -hour headway is less than 20 minutes, and divided by two if the peak -hour headway is less than 45 minutes. 2. Population in poverty within 1/4 mile of a transit stop 3. Minority populations within 1/4 mile of a transit stop Includes all residents who identify as a race other than White, along with those who identify as White and of Hispanic or Latino origin. 4. Population overage 65 within 1/4 mile of a transit stop 5. Population with limited -English proficiency within 1/4 mile of a transit stop >> Average Commute Time (Driving) The average commute time for residents driving to work in the region was calculated by the regional travel demand model. The share of residents commuting by other modes was too low to accurately estimate travel times using the travel demand model. >> Access to Mode Transfers Access to mode transfers includes two sub -categories that both represent aspects of multimodal trips in the region. The first is the number of park and ride spaces in the region, as these park and ride lots are used by residents who carpool, vanpool, or ride transit. The second is the number of bike rack spaces at transit stops in the region, as bicycling can be a valuable mode for traveling to and from transit stops. Economic Development and Land Use Measures Three measures were used to evaluate the impact of each scenario on economic development and land use. Two of these measures used TAZs that were identified as activity centers where relatively high -density, mixed -use areas exist or are likely to be developed. A map of these activity centers is shown in Figure 6-4. >> Access to Activity Centers by Bus, Bicycle and Walking This measure includes three sub -categories that quantify multimodal transportation access to the region's identified activity centers. 1. Transit stops within activity centers The number of transit stops within, or immediately adjacent to, activity center TAZs was counted, with express bus stops counting as two stops. Stops only served by peak -hour routes were not included. 2. Length of bicycle facilities within, or immediately adjacent to, activity center TAZs 3. Length of pedestrian facilities within, or immediately adjacent to, activity center TAZs >> Transportation Projects within Activity Centers This measure calculates the miles of roadway in the identified activity center TAZs. Roads with a functional classification of "local" were excluded. This measure was included to encourage increased connectivity with new roads that provide benefits for economic development and appropriate land uses. Scenario Performance Measures (Table 6-3) LRTP Goal LRTP Objective Aspect to Quantify Performance Measure Improve the efficiency of the existing Delay due to • transportation system and services Vehicle -hours of delay whenever possible. Congestion Total population within 1/4 mile of a transit stop* (multiply by 2 if peak -hour headway is 20 minutes or less, divide by 2 if peak -hour headway is 45 minutes Improve access to transit for all users. or more) Population below poverty line (present-day) within Ensure the diverse needs of a changing population are met including the elderly, Resident access to 1/4 mile from transit stop Minority population (present-day) within 1/4 mile Transit disabled, limited English proficiency, and persons lacking access to private vehicles. from transit stop Population age 65+ (present-day) within 1/4 mile from transit stop Limited -English proficiency (LEP) population (present- day) within 1/4 mile from transit stop SMART SCALE: Access to jobs Commute time Average commute time - driving Enhance connectivity among and between various modes of transportation # of park -and -ride spaces in the region through identifying and filling gaps in Access to mode networks. transfers Increase awareness and continue to support Rideshare and Travel Demand # of bike rack spaces at transit stops in the region Management (TDM) services. # of transit stops* within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs, with each express bus stop* Assure activity centers are designed to Access to activity counting as 2 stops Length of bicycle facilities within (or immediately accommodate a range of transportation centers by bus, bike modes. and walking adjacent to) activity center TAZs Length of pedestrian facilities within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs .. Target transportation improvements to Transportation Projects within or Miles of road that are within (or immediately - - - support local land use and development connected to activity adjacent to) activity center TAZs priorities. centers Improve the effectiveness of the existing transportation network, recognizing VMT (vehicle -miles internal and external future travel traveled) per capita VMT per capita demands from tourism, freight, and commuters. Reduce the number and severity of Fatality crashes, multiplied by 540 Injury crashes, multiplied by 10 crashes Crashes Property damage only crashes Identify key safety deficiencies in regional Bicycle and Length of regional shared -use paths and bike lanes networks across all modes including the Pedestrian network needs of bike and pedestrian users. Length of regional sidewalks and shared -use paths • Promote use of alternative transportation Non-SOV Commute % of trips non -motorized • modes and alternative fuel vehicles. Mode Share % of trips transit *excludes stops that serve only peak -hour (commuter) routes Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO » VMT (vehicle -miles traveled) Per Capita Vehicle -miles traveled per capita is a measure of the efficiency of the regional transportation network. It was estimated using the travel demand model. Scenarios with lower vehicle -miles traveled per capita may involve higher proportions of transit trips or more direct routes for vehicle trips. Safety Measures The safety measures include a measure related to vehicular crashes and a measure regarding the amount of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that provides safe travel across the region. >> Crashes, adjusted by severity The travel demand model estimates number of crashes using factors such as roadway speed and traffic volume. It estimates fatality crashes, injury crashes, and property - damage -only crashes, with this measure weighting those crashes using a standard calculation (fatality crashes multiplied by 540 and injury crashes multiplied by 10). Identified Activity Centers (Figure 6-4) >> Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is important for safe multimodal transportation in the region. For this measure, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that provides regional connections was identified and the length of this infrastructure was calculated. Environment and Community Measure One measure, non-SOV (single -occupancy vehicle) commute mode share, was used to evaluate the impact of each scenario on the environment and community. Multiple additional environmental- and community -related aspects are addressed in the Project Review information presented on the previous pages. Other measures also have notable environment and community benefits, including VMT per capita and multimodal access to activity centers. >> Non-SOV Commute Mode Share The travel demand model calculates a transportation mode share for commute trips. This measure combines the estimated non -motorized and transit commute mode shares (percent of trips). / Scenario Evaluation Process The scenario evaluation effort followed a similar process to that completed for the 2040 LRTP. There are multiple benefits of evaluating groups of projects using this scenario evaluation method. One reason for this method is that inclusion of one project may decrease the need for another project, primarily in relation to calculating roadway capacity and congestion. For example, creating a new roadway parallel to an existing roadway would decrease the benefits of widening the existing roadway. A second reason for the scenario evaluation method is to ensure that a variety of projects are identified as priorities so as to address the wide range of goals and objectives of the plan. If all projects were only assessed individually, the end result may only include bicycle and pedestrian projects, or might only include projects that have economic development benefits. The scenario evaluation process encourages decision -makers to consider projects with a range of benefits. Creation of Scenarios for Round 1 (Figure 6-5) Scenario A - Capacit]NEEL--- US 250/US 29 Bypass widening (R1) US 250 widening - Shadwell (R2) US 250 and Free Bridge widening (R5) 1-64 Truck Lanes (R16) Berkmar Drive Extension (R11) Sunset/Fontaine Connector (R12) Eastern Avenue - Crozet (R13) Hillsdale Drive to Rio Rd (R18) Pantops Bridge (R19) Starting the Scenario Evaluation Once all potential projects had been identified, they were categorized into three scenarios for a first round of scenario evaluation. The projects included in each scenario are shown in Figure 6-5 below. All scenarios included the projects that were SMART SCALE applications at the time. In addition, each scenario included only projects that were of a certain type. "Capacity" projects, which have a primary benefit of increasing roadway capacity and flow of vehicles, were included in Scenario A. "Connectivity" projects, which are new roadways providing multimodal transportation connections, were included in Scenario B. "Multimodal" projects, which increase transit, bicycle, or pedestrian infrastructure and include turn lanes or other relatively minor improvements for vehicles, were included in Scenario C. The primary purpose for the creation of these scenarios was to show the relative benefits of the different types of projects as evaluated by the scenario performance measures. Scenario C - Multimodal - Route 20 (R7) Rio Rd (R8) Fifth/Ridge/McIntire (R9) Avon Street (R10) Old Lynchburg (R14) Ivy Road - East (R15) Ivy Road - West (R17) Express Bus on US 29 Corridor (T1) Commuter bus to Crozet (T2) Bus route to Avon/Mill Creek (T3) Increased bus service to Pantops (T4) Fontaine Research Park bus route (T5) Hydraulic and 29 Area Projects (R3) Fontaine/Bypass Interchange (R4) West Main Street Multimodal (R6) �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 72 Round 1 of Scenario Evaluation Round 1 of the scenario evaluation was completed to show the relative benefits of the different types of projects as evaluated by the scenario performance measures. The results of the round 1 scenario evaluation are shown in Figure 6-6 below, with numeric values shown in Table 6-4 on the opposite page. All scenarios consider 2045 conditions. In the figure below, the bars show percentage improvement or worsening on each of the 10 measures, as compared to a scenario where no transportation improvements are made (2045 "no -build"). Round 1 Scenario Evaluation Graphic (Figure 6-6) Many of the results from the round 1 evaluation were expected based on the project groupings chosen. Clearly the scenario with the multimodal projects, Scenario C, had more benefits than the other scenarios for the transit and multimodal measures. And logically, the scenario with roadway capacity projects, Scenario A, had notable benefits on the commute time and hours of delay measures. Scenario B, with projects that provided increased connectivity, showed benefits on many of the measures, with particular benefits in the economic development and land use measures. The results from round 1 of the scenarios continued to be valuable as reference when evaluating scenarios in rounds 2 and 3. 5% 1% 5% 50% 5% 25% 5% I I I I I I I I I I Resident Access Commute Time - Access to Mode Multimodal Activity Activity Center VMT Per Capita to Transit Driving Transfers Centers Road Miles 1% 1% 1% 5% 10% 5% 10% Transit/Non-motorized Commute Mode Share Crashes Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Hours of Delay Worsens Improves Scenario A = Scenario B Scenario C The round 1 analysis was completed in September, 2018 and presented to the MPO committees in September and at a public open house in October. Staff and the MPO Policy Board used the results of the round 1 analysis, the information provided by the project review pages, and the input received from the public and MPO committees to identify projects to include in round 2 of the scenario evaluation. Some projects were not included in any scenario in round 2, as it was determined they are not currently priority projects. The decisions for projects to include in Scenarios D and E, as well as projects to remove and projects to move to the vision list, are shown in Figure 6-7. Round 1 Scenario Evaluation Results (Table 6-4) Creation of Scenarios for Round 2 (Figure 6-7) Hydraulic and US 29 (R3) Bypass/Fontaine Interchange (R4) West Main Street multimodal (R6) Rio Road multimodal (R8) 5th/Ridge/McIntire multimodal (R9) Avon Street multimodal (R10) Berkmar Drive Extension (R11) Old Lynchburg multimodal (R14) Express bus on Route 29 corridor (T1) Unconstrained bus service (T2, T3, T4) Hillsdale Drive to Rio (R18) Route 20 multimodal (R7) Sunset/Fontaine connector (R12) South Pantops Drive bridge (R19) US 29/250 widening (R1) - Cost and need Fontaine Research Park Bus (T5) - Implementation by UVA Hydraulic and US 29 (R3) Bypass/Fontaine Interchange (R4) West Main Street multimodal (R6) Rio Road multimodal (R8) 5th/Ridge/McIntire multimodal (R9) Avon Street multimodal (R10) Berkmar Drive Extension (R11) Old Lynchburg multimodal (R14) Express bus on Route 29 corridor (T1) Unconstrained bus service (T2, T3, T4) US250 Shadwell (R2) US250 Free Bridge widening (R5) Eastern Ave Crozet (R13) Ivy Road multimodal - East (R15) Ivy Road multimodal - West (R17) 164 Truck Lanes (R16) Measure Metric Base year (2015) 2045'no- build' Scenario A Capacity Scenario B Connectivity Scenario C Multimodal Congestion Vehicle -hours of delay 7065 10668 9362 9952 10491 Population near stop* with peak headway of 20 minutes of less 31267 41948 41948 41948 44218 Population near stop* with peak headway of 20-45 minutes 23529 26625 26625 26625 29474 Access to Transit Population near stop* with peak headway of more than 45 min 12153 15058 15058 15058 13370 Poverty population living within 1/4 mile (2016) 13460 13492 13492 13492 13667 Minority population living within 1/4 mile (2016) 23734 23680 23680 23680 24076 Age 65+ population living within 1/4 mile (2016) 6221 6034 6034 6034 6252 LEP population living within 1/4 mile (2016) 595 598 598 598 606 Commute time Average commute time - driving 11.6 12.9 12.51 12.8 12.8 Access to mode # of park -and -ride spaces 272 360 360 360 609 transfers # of bike rack spaces at transit stops 93 95 95 95 247 # of local bus transit stops* within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 146 148 148 148 200 Bus, bike and pedestrian # of express bus transit stops* within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 0 0 0 0 13 network within activity centers Length of bike facilities within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 29.7 38.1 39.6 42.0 41.5 Length of pedestrian facilities within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 117.5 123.0 123.6 126.5 125.9 Roadways within activity centers Miles of road that are within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 47.6 51.2 51.8 54.9 51.8 VMT per capita VMT per capita 27.2 32.8 32.9 32.7 32.8 Number of Fatality crashes 15 19 19 19 19 Safety/Crashes Number of Injury crashes 1157 1433 1469 1432 1447 Number of Property damage only crashes 2625 3291 3332 3307 3343 Bike/Ped Length of regional bicycle paths and lanes 46.7 55.4 59.5 60.2 64.5 network Length of regional sidewalks and paths 106.61 113.0 115.91 117.2 121.4 Non-SOV Mode % of trips non -motorized 4.60 4.77 4.651 4.771 4.76 Share % of trips transit 0.33 0.33 0.331 0.331 0.41 *excludes stops that serve only peak -hour (commuter) routes �' ��tric Co mission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Rounds 2 and 3 of Scenario Evaluation As shown in Fiaure 6-7 on page 75, Scenarios D and E share many projects in common. With the projects that were unique to each scenario, Scenario D included multiple connectivity projects while Scenario E included two projects that would increase vehicle capacity and add bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The results of this evaluation are shown in Figure 6-8 and Table 6-5. The results indicated that Scenario D was better than Scenario E in all ways except for commute time and congestion mitigation, where the benefits from Scenario D were similar to the benefits from Scenario E. Following round 2 of the scenario evaluation, there was considerable discussion about the project options being suggested for the Free Bridge area. Specifically, City of Charlottesville staff were concerned about public support for either expanding the number of lanes on Free Bridge All Scenarios Evaluation Graphic (Figure 6-8) or constructing a new bridge parallel to Free Bridge. Given this, the MPO Technical committee suggested not moving forward with either of these alternatives in future scenarios. Instead, the committee proposed that the LRTP suggest an additional study of the area with an emphasis on improving transit service and multimodal capacity. This study was considered a new project, given the project ID R20, and would be a follow up to the Free Bridge Congestion Relief study completed in 2015 by the TJPDC. The MPO Policy Board agreed with this suggestion, and the new Free Bridge area study was included in Scenario F, which was evaluated in round 3. Resident Access Reduction in vehicle Access to Mode Multimodal Activity Activity Center to Transit commute time Transfers Centers Road Miles 5% 1% 5% 50% I I 5% 25% I I 5% Worsens Improves Worsens Improves Worsens Improves I Worsens Improves Worsens Improves Transit/Non-motorized Roadway safety Bicycle and Pedestrian Commute Mode Share (measure for crashes) Network 1% 1% 1% 5% 10% Worsens Improves Worsens Improves Worsens Improves Network efficiency (measure for VMT per capita) 1% 1% Worsens Improves Congestion Mitigation (measure for hours of delay) 5% 10% Worsens Improves Scenario A Scenario Scenario l Scenario D = Scenario E Scenario F Capacity Connectivityy Multimodal Scenario F included many of the same projects included in Scenario D, with some removed to further narrow down the region's priority projects. Scenario F included the following projects: » Hydraulic and US 29 Area Projects (R3) » Fontaine/Bypass Interchange (R4) » West Main Street Multimodal (R6) » Fifth/Ridge/McIntire Multimodal (R9) » Avon Street Multimodal (R10) » Berkmar Drive Extension (R11) » Eastern Avenue (Crozet) (R13) » Hillsdale Drive to Rio Road (R18) » Free Bridge area multimodal capacity study (R20) » Express Bus on US 29 Corridor (T1) » Commuter bus to Crozet (T2) » Bus route to Avon/Mill Creek (T3) » Increased bus service to Pantops (T4) All Scenarios Evaluation Results (Table 6-5) The results of the evaluation of Scenario F are also shown in Figure 6-8 and Table 6-4. The removal of multiple multimodal projects and the Free Bridge area projects led to Scenario F having a lower benefit than Scenario D in multiple measures, including congestion mitigation and bicycle and pedestrian network. Given the lower cost compared to other scenarios, Scenario F was seen as a good combination of projects with valuable benefits in nearly every performance measure. Measure Metric Base year (2015) 2045 'no- build' Scenario A Capacity Scenario B Connectivity Scenario C Multimodal Scenario D Scenario E Scenario F Congestion Vehicle -hours of delay 7065 10668 9362 9952 10491 9922 9818 10168 Population near stop* with peak headway of 20 minutes of less 31267 41946 41948 41948 46421 46131 46131 46131 Population near stop* with peak headway of 20-45 minutes 23529 26629 26625 26625 31066 31068 31068 31068 Population near stop* with peak headway of more than 45 min 12153 150591 15058 15058 92611 9261 92611 9261 Access to Transit Poverty population living within 1/4 mile (2016) 13460 13492 13492 13492 13667 13608 13608 13608 Minority population living within 1/4 mile (2016) 23734 23680 23680 23680 24076 23941 23941 23941 Age 55+ population living within 1/4 mile (2016) 6221 6034 6034 6034 6252 6141 6141 6141 LEP population living within 1/4 mile (2016) 595 598 598 598 606 601 601 601 Commute time Average commute time - driving 11.6 12.9 12.5 12.8 12.8 12.7 12.5 12.7 Access to mode # of park -and -ride spaces 272 360 360 360 609 579 579 579 transfers # of bike rack spaces at transit stops 93 951 95 95 247 239 2391 239 # of local bus transit stops* within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 146 148 148 148 200 191 191 191 Bus, bike and pedestrian # of express bus transit stops* within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 0 0 0 0 13 13 13 13 network within activity centers Length of bike facilities within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 29.7 38.1 39.6 41.3 41.5 43.4 41.8 41.7 Length of pedestrian facilities within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 117.5 123.0 123.6 125.9 125.9 128.0 126.0 126.3 Roadways within activity centers Miles of road that are within (or immediately adjacent to) activity center TAZs 47.6 51.2 51.8 54.2 51.8 54.0 52.9 53.5 VMT per capita VMT per capita 27.2 32.8 32.9 32.7 32.8 32.7 32.7 32.8 Number of Fatality crashes 151 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Safety/Crashes Number of Injury crashes 1157 1433 1469 1432 1447 1431 14621 1436 Number of Property damage only crashes 2625 3291 3332 3307 3343 3304 3316 3315 Bike/Ped network Length of regional bicycle paths and lanes 46.7 55.4 59.5 59.6 64.5 64.5 64.9 60.2 Length of regional sidewalks and paths 106.6 113.0 115.9 116.8 121.4 121.6 121.3 117.6 Non-SOV Mode % of trips non -motorized 4.60 4.77 4.651 4.77 4.76 4.78 4.74 4.77 Share %oftrips transit 0.33 0.33 0.331 0.331 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.39 *excludes stops that serve only peak -hour (commuter) routes la ��tric Co mission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Results of Scenario Evaluation Process All projects, and the scenarios in which they were evaluated, are shown in Table 6-6 below. The scenario evaluation process, and associated public input and MPO Policy Board and committee discussions, led to a relative prioritization of projects. The projects considered highest priority for the region are those that were included in Scenario F. Unfortunately, some of these projects may struggle to receive funding through SMART SCALE or similar funding streams. Given these challenges, the region should pursue all possibilities to fund the priority projects while also making sure to take advantage of any opportunities to fund other projects. Local funding may also need to play a more major role in improving the local transportation network. Project List and Scenario Evaluation (Table 6-6) / Conclusion The project and scenario evaluation completed as part of the LRTP process provided information about benefits and potential negative impacts of the projects being considered. The information was presented to both the public and the MPO committees to gather feedback on the projects. The process led to identification of priority projects for the region, with the understanding that this prioritization may not lead to more immediate funding of projects given the competitive nature of most available funding. ID Project Name Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 A B C D E F R1 US 29/250 Bypass widening x R2 US 250 widening - Shadwell x x R3 Hydraulic and US 29 - all projects x x x x x x R4 Bypass/Fontaine Interchange x x x x x x R5 250 Free Bridge widening x x R6 West Main Street multimodal x x x x x x R7 Route 20 multimodal x x R8 Rio Road multimodal x x x R9 Fifth/Ridge/McIntire multimodal x x x x R10 Avon Street multimodal x x x x R11 Berkmar extension x x x x R12 Sunset/Fontaine connector x x R13 Eastern Ave connector x x R14 Old Lynchburg multimodal x x x R15 Ivy Road East multimodal x R16 1-64 truck lanes x R17 Ivy Road West multimodal x R18 Hillsdale Drive to Rio Rd x x x R19 South Pantops Drive Bridge x x R20 Free Bridge area capacity evaluation with bike + ped and transit x T1 Express Bus on US 29 Corridor x x x x T2 Commuter Bus to Crozet x x x x T3 Bus Route to Avon/Mill Creek x x x x T4 Increased Bus service to Pantops x x x x T5 Fontaine Research Park Bus route x T6 Commuter Service from Valley Rivanna River and Free Bridge, Photo: TJPDC Painting: Gray Dodson, River After the Storm, oil on canvas, 2018 FLOW River Arts Festival �' inDistrict ssion Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Overview..........................................................................82 Intersections......................................................................82 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Network..............................................82 Bridges...........................................................................82 Conclusion........................................................................82 List of Figures Figure 7-1: Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Network 1 Overview The LRTP is a comprehensive process that identifies needs for many elements of the transportation system. Chapter 7 evaluated the benefits of roadway and transit projects and this chapter will provide information about intersections, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and bridge needs. These aspects were separated from the roadway and transit analysis for multiple reasons, including that some funding is dedicated to one type of project. There are also challenges associated with measuring the impact of various types of improvements. For example, the travel demand model used to estimate the congestion impact of roadway and transit projects is not able to calculate the impact of intersection or bike/ped improvements. Nonetheless, the transportation network is one system and any decision should consider all aspects of the network to ensure maximum performance of the system and good quality of life for residents of the region. 1 Intersections Intersections are a central concern in the MPO, as intersections are primary areas of congestion, locations where many crashes occur, and barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel. Given this, VDOT and the localities are continuously evaluating conditions at intersections and working to identify improvements that increase safety and multimodal flow through intersections. This LRTP process compiled a list of intersections that have been identified by VDOT or the localities as important locations for improvements. These intersections are provided in Chapter 8. Bridges Like intersections, bridges are continuously evaluated by VDOT and the localities to ensure safe travel now and in the future. This LRTP includes the information that VDOT has collected regarding bridge condition, and the MPO will continue to monitor these conditions as part of the national performance measures. A list of bridges that are currently identified as being in poor or fair condition, or otherwise needing improvement, is provided in Chapter 8. Chapter 8 also contains a list of bridge improvement projects that are already funded. 1 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Network In 2019, the MPO adopted the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to provide a regional vision for implementation of regional bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. A map showing existing and proposed infrastructure is shown in Figure 7-1. While the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identified a large number of corridors and projects, it was not an attempt to compile all potential projects. As such, local efforts will identify additional bicycle and pedestrian needs within neighborhoods and between neighborhoods. Initial cost estimates indicate that over $200 million worth of investment will be needed to construct the corridors identified in the plan. To guide this investment, the plan prioritized projects into three tiers. As shown in Chapter 8, all projects recommended by the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are included in this LRTP. Many of the top tier projects are included in the constrained bicycle and pedestrian section of the LRTP, with the remainder included on the vision list. Conclusion The LRTP is a compilation of many efforts to provide a comprehensive understanding of the region's transportation system. Evaluation completed by VDOT, the localities, and other MPO efforts, was brought together in the LRTP to identify the region's priority projects. Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Network (Figure 7-1) V ABOUT THIS MAP: This map depicts the corridors identified as the regional bicycle and pedestrian network. An interactive version of this map is available online. FEATURES Parks and Conservation --- Proposed Bike Lane and Sidewalk --- Proposed Shared Use Path Lakes and Rivers — Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk — Existing Shared Use Path +1+ Railroads --- Proposed Shared Road and Sidewalk --- Rural Corridors — Existing Shared Road and Sidewalk 1� ,21"w— Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 83 Overview..........................................................................86 Funding and Cost Estimates.........................................................86 Funded Projects...................................................................87 Constrained and Vision Lists by Category..............................................90 Conclusion........................................................................94 List of Figures Fiaure 8-1: Funding Estimates Figure 8-2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Map Figure 8-3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Urban Map List of Tables Table 8-1: Funded Bridge Projects Table 8-2: Funded Roadway and Intersection Projects Table 8-3: Funded Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Table 8-4: Constrained Roadway and Intersection Lists Table 8-5: Roadway Vision List Table 8-6: Transit List Table 8-7: Intersection Vision List Table 8-8: Bridge List Table 8-9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Constrained List Table 8-10: Bicycle and Pedestrian Vision List Table 8-11: Bicycle and Pedestrian Vision List Continued Table 8-12: Bicycle and Pedestrian Vision List Continued Overview As explained in Chapter 4, a primary requirement for the LRTP is the creation of constrained lists of projects, based on estimates of future funding. Estimating future funding has become more challenging in recent years, particularly since Virginia has moved to a competitive method of distributing major funding, SMART SCALE. The inclusion of a project in the constrained list of this LRTP has less impact than in the past, as each project needs to compete for state and federal funding regardless of whether it is in the constrained list or the vision list. Nonetheless, the constrained and vision lists are an essential component of this LRTP and identify projects that the region desires to receive state and federal funds to construct. As indicated in Chapter 4, transportation projects in the region were split into 5 categories for evaluation and inclusion in the constrained and vision lists. These categories are: • Roadway projects that improve safety and flow for those using vehicles, as well as improving bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure. • Transit projects that increase transit service in the region. • Intersection projects that improve safety and flow for all transportation modes at intersections. • Bicycle and pedestrian projects that create safe and desirable infrastructure for bicycling and walking. • Bridge projects that rehabilitate or replace bridges to ensure the region's bridges remain safe and in good condition. Funding Estimates (Figure 8-1) Note: all values are in millions. Funding and Cost Estimates MPO staff worked with VDOT staff to create estimates, shown in Figure 8-1, for the amount of state and federal transportation funds that the region will receive before 2045. For two categories, intersections and bicycle and pedestrian projects, staff used the same method that was used in the previous LRTP. For these categories, the amount of money currently programmed for each type of project in the TIP (FY2018-2021) was used to estimate annual yearly funding. The primary funding source associated with bicycle and pedestrian improvements is the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), although other programs fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Likewise, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is the primary, but not only, program that funds intersection improvements. The estimate for future bridge funding came directly from VDOT, which provided an estimate for State of Good Repair (SGR) funding. The most challenging category to estimate was the roadway category, corresponding to SMART SCALE funds. This estimate was created based on the region's performance in the completed rounds of SMART SCALE, rounds 1 and 2. The amount of money allocated per year from each round was calculated and averaged for the two rounds. This value was used for the first projected year, but was reduced for each following year, using VDOT estimates regarding a decrease in funding over time. Appropriate estimates for transit funding are not available due to ongoing changes to the methods used by DRPT for distributing transit capital and operating funds. Project cost estimates were created in coordination with VDOT staff. Most project costs were estimated using the VDOT planning -level cost estimation tool, with other project costs being taken from previous studies and escalated to a construction year of 2020. Transit operating costs are dynamic and can change due to travel patterns, demand and other factors. Therefore, while transit projects are an important element of the LRTP operating estimates cannot be accurately provided. Funded Projects Each year the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) creates a funding plan for projects for the next six years, referred to as the Six -Year Improvement Program (SYIP). The funded projects in the MPO area have been identified, with bridge projects listed in Table 8-1, roadway and intersection projects described in Table 8-2, and bicycle and pedestrian projects described in Table 8-3. Funded Bridge Projects (Table 8-1) UPC VDOT Structure # Description Purpose Total Cost 110001 1024 Crozet Ave over Lickinghole Creek Bridge $2,210,000 Rehabilitation 111779 6401 Fontaine Ave Extended over Morey Creek Bridge $3,500,000 Replacement 111378 6255 Red Hill Road over North Fork Hardware River Bridge $2,210,000 Rehabilitation 75878 1801 9th Street over Water Street and Railroad tracks Bridge $24,787,000 Belmont Bride Replacement 110891 1808 US 250 Bypass over Rugby Ave Bridge $2,488,000 Rehabilitation 110892 1809 US 250 Bypass over US 29 Business Bridge $3,848,000 Rehabilitation 110890 8004 Melbourne Road over Norfork Southern Railroad Bridge $2,441,000 tracks Rehabilitation 111776 6261 Old Ivy Road over US 29/250 Bypass Bridge $3,038,000 Rehabilitation 110000 6042 Fray's Mill Road over Marsh Run Bridge $1,600,000 Rehabilitation 110893 1810 US 250 Bypass over Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks Bridge $1,303,000 Rehabilitation 6013 Dickerson Road over North Fork Rivanna River Bridge Rehabilitation Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Funded Roadway and Intersection Projects (Table 8-2) UPC Name Description Purpose Total Cost US 29 and 1-64 Add left turn lanes from Southbound US 29 to Improve safety and 111727 (Exit 118) Eastbound 1-64 ramp to address weave issues on I- traffic flow $1,000,000 Improvements 64. Rio Mills and Create new 2-lane roadway, with a sidewalk and a Increase network 109397 Berkmar Dr shared use path, between Rio Mills Road and $3,800,000 Connector Road Berkmar Drive Extended. connectivity 109551, Emmet Street Improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure Increase 110381 Streetscape and facilities between University Ave and Arlington multimodal capacity $28,313,000 Blvd. Upgrade traffic signals and improve landscaping. and safety Improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure Increase 109484 Fontaine Ave and facilities between the City boundary and Jefferson multimodal capacity $11,700,000 Streetscape Park Ave. Improve landscaping and reimagine access and safety mana ement. Improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure Increase 109480 East High Street and facilities on Market Street, 9th Street NE, and East multimodal capacity $5,638,000 Streetscape High Street. Upgrade traffic signals, landscaping and and safety way -finding si na e. Route 20 and Reconstruct intersection of Route 20 (Stony Point Improve safety and 111733 Proffit Rd Road) and Route 649 (Proffit Rd) to improve safety traffic flow $4,000,000 Intersection and traffic flow. Emmet and Add additional turn lanes at intersection, improve Increase 111796 Barracks pedestrian crossings, construct new bicycle and multimodal capacity $8,641,000 Intersection pedestrian facilities along Barracks Rd to Hilltop Road. and safety 111814 I-64 Exit 124 DDI Construct a diverging diamond interchange (DDI) at Improve safety and $18,389,000 the interchange of 1-64 and US 250 (Exit 124). traffic flow US 29 and Add a choice lane to the Northbound Route 29 ramp Improve safety and 111813 Fontaine Ave to address weave issues at the Fontaine Ave traffic flow $2,630,000 Ramp interchange north of 1-64. Library Ave Create new 2-lane roadway, with bicycle and Increase network 113385 Extension to pedestrian facilities, that extends Library Ave to $4,987,000 Parkside Village connect to High St and Hilltop Street. connectivity West Main Street Improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure Increase 113176 Phase 1 and facilities between Ridge St and 6th Street NW. multimodal capacity $12,588,000 Upgrade traffic signals and landscaping. and safety West Main Street Improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure Increase 113177 Phase 2* and facilities between 6th Street NW and 8th Street multimodal capacity $12,689,000 NW. Upgrade traffic signals and landscaping. and safety Reconstruct the US 250 (Richmond Road) and Route Increase US 250 and Route 20 (Stony Point Road) intersection to improve safety multimodal capacity $8,800,000 20 Intersection* and operations. Project includes new sidewalks and and safety crosswalks. Reconstruct the intersection of 5th Street with Cherry 5th Street SW Ave, Ridge Street, and Elliot Ave to reduce Increase Corridor congestion, improve safety, and accommodate multimodal capacity $6,103,034 Improvements** bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit. Improvements will and safety extend to the intersection of Ridge Street and 5th Street where upgrades will also be made. Realign Preston Avenue and create a consolidated Preston Ave and signalized intersection of Preston Avenue, 10th Street, Increase Grady Ave and Grady Avenue. Provide multi -modal transportation multimodal capacity $6,220,466 Intersection** improvements to increase safety and enhance and safety operations for all users. *Recommended for funding through SMART SCALE, but not yet approved by the CTB **At the time of LRTP adoption, one of these two projects was going to be recommended for SMART SCALE funding Funded Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (Table 8-3) UPC Name Description Purpose Total Cost Bypass Commuter New shared use path parallel to the US 250 Bypass Bicycle and 107547 Trail between Meadowbrook Heights Road and Hydraulic pedestrian $969,000 Road connectivity 113183 Commonwealth Drive/Dominion Add sidewalks on Commonwealth Drive and Dominion Pedestrian $3,336,000 Drive Sidewalks Drive between Hydraulic Road and US 29 connectivity Monticello Ave and Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and Bicycle and 113917 2nd Street SE accessibility through curb extensions, ADA pedestrian $338,000 Intersection crosswalks, and bicycle boxes connectivity Monticello Ave and Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and Bicycle and 113915 Ridge Street accessibility through curb extensions, ADA pedestrian $210,000 Intersection crosswalks, and bicycle boxes connectivity Cherry Ave and Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and Bicycle and 113919 Ridge Street accessibility through curb extensions, ADA pedestrian $265,000 Intersection crosswalks, and bicycle boxes connectivity Washington New shared use path connecting Madison Ave Bicycle and 113861 Park/Madison Ave through Washington Park pedestrian $75,000 connector trail connectivity 10th Street NW and Improve pedestrian safety and accessibility through Pedestrian 113916 Grady Ave curb extensions, ADA crosswalks, and a rectangular connectivity $291,000 Intersection rapid flashing beacon RRFB Preston Ave and Improve pedestrian safety and accessibility through Pedestrian 113918 Harris Street curb extensions, ADA crosswalks, and additional connectivity $246,000 Intersection sidewalk at the median 113508 Cale Elementary School Bike/Ped New sidewalks between Cale Elementary and Avon Safe Routes to $512,000 Improvements Street with new pedestrian crossing of Avon Street Schools New shared use path connecting the Greer Greer/Jouett Elementary School and Jouett Middle School Campus Safe Routes to 113507 Bike/Ped to the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the Schools $710,000 Improvements intersection of Hydraulic Road and Lambs Road and to Albemarle High School Berkmar Drive New shared use path or enhanced sidewalk from Bicycle and 113186 Bicycle and Hydraulic Road to Hilton Heights Road to connect to pedestrian $2,690,000 Pedestrian the new shared use path on Berkmar Drive Extended connectivity Improve ents Meadow Creek Bicycle and 113592 Valley Trail New shared use path bridge across Meadow Creek pedestrian $375,000 connectivity 109609 5th Street Hub and New shared use path connecting to new parking that Bicycle and pedestrian $600,000 Trails provides access to the path connectivity Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Constrained and Vision Lists by Category Following the roadway and transit evaluation described in Chapter 6 and the compilation of other evaluation described in Chapter 7, final project lists were created and reviewed. The MPO Committee reviewed the lists at multiple meetings in early 2019, and presentations were also made to the Charlottesville and Albemarle Planning Commissions. The decision was made to include all projects that came from the recent Hydraulic Area Plan in the constrained lists, as shown in Table 8-4 below. The Hillsdale Drive to Rio Road project and the remaining phases of the West Main Street multimodal project were also included in the constrained roadway list. All other priority roadway and intersection projects are included in Tables 8-5 and 8-7, and priority transit projects are included in Table 8-6. All projects listed here should be considered equally eligible for any federal, state, or local funding, given the uncertainty related to funding sources and likelihood that different projects will be eligible and competitive for different funding sources. The region's priority bridge projects are listed in Table 8-8. Constrained Roadway and Intersection Lists (Table 8-4) Constrained Roadway Project List Estimated Cost (CY2020) $ Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction Constrained Amount Total calculated project Cost R3-a Hydraulic and US 29 Intersection Both $ 15.9 $ 79.1 R3-b Angus Rd overpass, Hillsdale Extension, 250 Ramp Relocation $ 50.5 $ 50.5 R3-e Zan Road Bridge $ 39.3 $ 39.3 R6 West Main Street multimodal Charlottesville $ 11.9 $ 11.9 R18 Hillsdale Drive to Rio Albemarle $ 9.3 $ 9.3 TOTAL $ 126.9 Constrained Intersection Project List Estimated Cost (CY2020) $ R3-a Hydraulic and US 29 Intersection Both 63.2 79.1 R3-c District Ave Roundabout 8.4 8.4 R3-d Hillsdale Roundabout 10.7 10.7 TOTALI 82.3 Roadway Vision List (Table 8-5) LRTP Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction Cost* in millions R2 US 250 widening - Shadwell Albemarle $ 19.9 R4 Bypass/Fontaine Interchange Albemarle $ 19.2 R5 US 250 and Free Bridge widening Both $ 39.5 R7 Route 20 multimodal Albemarle $ 6.7 R8 Rio Road multimodal Albemarle $ 13.3 R9 Fifth/Ridge/McIntire multimodal Charlottesville $ 16.9 R10 Avon Street multimodal Both $ 14.5 R11 Berkmar Drive Extension Albemarle $ 12.5 R12 Sunset/Fontaine connector Albemarle $ 17.7 R13 Eastern Avenue (Crozet) Albemarle $ 8.5 R14 Old Lynchburg multimodal Albemarle $ 8.7 R15 Ivy Road multimodal - East Albemarle $ 2.4 R16 1-64 truck lanes Albemarle $ 43.8 R17 Ivy Road multimodal - West Albemarle $ 4.5 R19 South Pantops Drive Bridge Both $ 31.4 R20 Free Bridge Area Capacity Study Both $ - C1 Elliot Avenue between Ridge Street and Avon Street Charlottesville $ - C2 Preston Avenue between 10th Street NW and McIntire Road Charlottesville $ - C3 10th Street NW between Wertland Street and Preston Avenue Charlottesville $ - C4 East High Street between 9th Street and Locust Avenue Charlottesville $ - Al US 250 between 1-64 and Free Bridge, improvements described in Pantops Master Plan Albemarle $ - *All cost estimates are for FY20 construction year Total $ 259.5 Transit List (Table 8-6) Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction Cost T1 Express Bus on US-29 Corridor Both PE -only $1.0* T2 Bus service to Crozet Both N/A** T3 Bus Route to Avon/Mill Creek Both N/A** T4 Increased Bus service to Pantops Both N/A** T6 Transit service to the Shenandoah Valley Both N/A** *A study is needed to identify the appropriate infrastructure and other improvements that would make this service successful ** The primary cost for these services would be operational, while the LRTP primarily identifies capital and infrastructure costs Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Intersection Vision List (Table 8-7) Locality Street 1 Street 2 Other Street(s) Source Albemarle US 250 Crozet Avenue Albemarle Albemarle US 29 Burnley Station Rd Albemarle Albemarle US 250 Owensville Road Albemarle Albemarle US 250 Tilman Road Albemarle Albemarle US 29 Woodbrook Drive Albemarle Albemarle Route 20 Route 53 Albemarle Charlottesville US 250 Bypass Hydraulic Road MPO Charlottesville Preston Avenue 10th Street NW City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Preston Avenue Grady Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Preston Avenue 9th Street NW Rose Hill Drive City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Fontaine Avenue Maury Avenue Jefferson Park Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Roosevelt Brown Boulevard Cherry Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Cherry Avenue 6th Street SW City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Cherry Avenue Ridge Street 5th Street, Elliot Ave City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Elliot Avenue Burnet Way Burnet Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 5th Street SW Oak Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 4th Street SW Dice Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Ridge Street Oak Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Monticello Avenue Ridge Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 6th Street SE Monticello Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Avon Street Monticello Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 9th Street 11th Street NE City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 9th Street Grove Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 11th Street NE Little High Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 10th Street NE Little High Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville East High Street 8th Street NE City of Charlottesville Charlottesville East High Street 7th Street NE City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 5th Street SE Elliot Avenue City of Charlottesville Albemarle US 250 Stoney Point Road VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle Rio Road Pen Park Ln VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle Route 20 Key West Dr VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle Ivy Road Ivy Depot Road VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle Route 53 Milton Rd VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle US 250 State Farm Blvd VDOT (PSI location) Charlottesville Elliot Avenue Monticello Avenue VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle US 29 Westfield Rd VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle Old Lynchburg Road 5th Street VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle US 250 Louisa Road VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle US 250 Route 240 VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle Rio Road Old Brook Road VDOT (PSI location) Albemarle Rio Road Northfield Road Hillsdale Drive VDOT (PSI location) Charlottesville Main Street 14th Street VDOT (PSI location) Bridge List (Table 8-8) VDOT Structure Number Locality Street Crossing Condition 1120 Albemarle US 250 (Richmond Rd) Shadwell Creek Poor 6224 Albemarle Keswick Road Carroll Creek Poor 6229 Albemarle Wheeler Road Moores Creek Poor 6230 Albemarle Wheeler Road Moores Creek Poor 6258 Albemarle Blair Park Road Lickinghole Creek Poor 8000 Charlottesville Dairy Road US 250 Bypass Poor 1007 Albemarle SR 20 (Scottsville Rd) Stream Fair 1049 Albemarle US 250 (Ivy Rd) Mechums River Fair 1081 Albemarle SR 22 (Louisa Rd) Branch Carroll Creek Fair 1117 Albemarle US 250 (Richmond Rd) Camp Branch Fair 1118 Albemarle US 250 (Richmond Rd) Barn Branch Fair 1139 Albemarle US 250 (Monacan Trail Road) Barracks Road Fair 1154 Albemarle US 29 (Seminole Trail) North Fork Rivanna River Fair 1164 Albemarle US 29 (Monacan Trail) Fontaine Avenue Fair 1165 Albemarle US 29 (Monacan Trail) Fontaine Avenue Fair 1170 Albemarle SR 20 (Monticello Ave) Moores Creek Fair 1171 Albemarle SR 20 (Monticello Ave) Moores Creek Fair 2043 Albemarle 1-64 SR 20 (Scottsville Rd) Fair 2047 Albemarle 1-64 Rivanna River and Buckingham Branch RR tracks Fair 2048 Albemarle 1-64 Rivanna River and Buckingham Branch RR tracks Fair 2051 Albemarle 1-64 Private entrance Fair 2065 Albemarle 1-64 SR 682 (Broad Axe Rd) Fair 2066 Albemarle 1-64 SR 682 (Broad Axe Rd) Fair 2067 Albemarle 1-64 US 29 (Monacan Trail Rd) Fair 2068 Albemarle 1-64 Moores Creek and Norfolk Southern RR tracks Fair 2069 Albemarle 1-64 Moores Creek and Norfolk Southern RR tracks Fair 8006 Charlottesville Copeley Road Buckingham Branch RR tracks Fair 8013 Charlottesville Rugby Rd Buckingham Branch RR tracks Fair 8008 j Charlottesville j Park Street US 250 Bypass j Good 8007 1 Charlottesville I Locust Avenue US 250 Bypass Good Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Vision List (Table 8-10) As explained in Chapter 7, the bicycle and pedestrian projects included in the LRTP come directly from the recently -completed Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. That plan prioritized projects into three tiers, with tier 1 being the highest priority projects. Many of the tier 1 projects were identified for inclusion in the bicycle and pedestrian constrained list, shown in Table 8-9. All other projects identified in the plan were included in the vision list, shown in Tables 8-10, 8-11, and 8-12. As with projects in the other categories, bicycle and pedestrian projects in all lists should be pursued as opportunities arise and as projects are identified to be competitive for funding. Bicycle and Pedestrian Constrained List (Table 8-9) Conclusion The LRTP process was beneficial for the MPO in many ways, including ensuring that deficiencies were identified and potential projects were evaluated and discussed. As required by FHWA and FTA, the MPO has created constrained project lists and identified additional projects included in vision lists. These lists will ensure coordinated decision -making by federal, state, and local officials in regards to important regional projects in the MPO in the upcoming years. BPID Location/Name Type Status Final Tier Length (miles) Cost (Low) Cost (High) Barrier Cost LRTP Cost BP5 Avon St - Monticello Rd BL Tier 1 0.31 0.22 0.43 0.32 BP13 US250 - East of Park St SUP Tier 1 0.48 0.86 1.80 1.33 BP14 US250 - West of Park St SUP Tier 1 0.06 0.10 0.22 0.16 BP20 US29 - Fashion Square SUP Tier 1 1.26 2.26 4.73 3.50 BP23 Emmet St - South of US250 SUP Tier 1 0.33 0.59 1.25 0.92 BP25 Emmet St - Barracks Shopping SUP Tier 1 0.55 0.98 2.05 1.52 BP29 Avon St - City Boundry BL Tier 1 0.40 0.29 0.56 0.88 1.31 BP30 Copeley Rd BL Tier 1 0.37 0.27 0.52 0.39 BP35 Whitewood Rd BL Tier 1 0.58 0.55 1.40 0.98 BP36 Greenbrier Dr - East BL EX SR Tier 1 0.43 0.30 0.59 0.45 BP46 Long St SUP Tier 1 0.54 0.96 2.01 1.49 BP64 Biscuit Run - Connector SUP Tier 1 0.98 1.76 3.69 2.72 BP68 Rivanna River - US29 Connection SUP Tier 1 1.10 1.98 4.16 1 3.07 BP77 John Warner Pkwa - Connector SUP Tier 1 0.06 0.12 0.24 2.00 2.18 BP78 US250 - Hydraulic crossing SUP Tier 1 0.74 1.32 2.77 2.04 BP80 Riverview Park - Crossing SUP Tier 1 0.61 1.09 2.29 2.45 4.14 BP95 Rockcreek Rd - Parallel SUP Tier 1 0.74 1.33 2.79 2.06 BP103 Meadow Creek - Hillsdale Dr Connector SUP ITier 1 0.26 0.46 0.97 0.72 BP116 Hydraulic Rd - East of Hillsdale Dr SUP EX SR Tier 1 0.19 0.33 0.70 0.52 BP121 Broadway St BL Tier 1 0.96 0.92 2.32 1.62 BP122 Broadway St Ext SUP Tier 1 1 0.24 0.42 0.89 0.66 BP128 Meadow Creek - Hydraulic SUP Tier 1 0.90 1.61 3.37 2.49 BP129 Greenbrier Dr - West BL EX SR Tier 1 0.13 0.12 0.31 0.22 BP130 Sunset Ave - Crossing SUP Tier 1 0.06 0.10 0.21 0.42 0.57 BP143 Old Lynchburg Rd BL Tier 1 0.63 0.76 2.19 1.47 BP147 Meadow Creek - Greenbriar Park SUP Tier 1 0.40 0.72 1.51 1.12 BP154 Stadium Rd BL Tier 1 1 0.25 0.18 0.34 0.26 BP157 9th St SW IBL I ITier 1 1 0.321 0.23 0.44 0.33 BP161 l5th St Hub ISUP I ITier 1 1 0.541 0.96 2.02 1.49 Total 40.02 Column Descriptions BPID: ID number, corresponds to map Location/Name: general project location Type: SUP is shared use path, BL is bike lane and sidewalk, SR is shared road and sidewalk Final Tier: the final prioritization tier from the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (tier 1 is highest priority) Length: length of the project in miles Cost: low and high estimates for cost of the project (in millions), excluding bridges, tunnels or overcoming other barriers Barrier Cost: initial estimate of cost (in millions) for necessary bridges, tunnels or other infrastructure that crosses major barriers LRTP Cost: cost (in millions) used for LRTP constraining; calculated as barrier cost added to the average of the low and high costs BPID Location/Name Type Final Tier Length (miles) BP1 Ivy Rd - Bypass SUP Tier 2 0.89 BP2 E Market St - West BL Tier 2 0.61 BP4 Barracks Rd - City West BL Tier 2 0.52 BP6 lWater St BL Tier 1 0.82 BP7 Ridge McIntire Rd - Downtown BL Tier 1 0.28 BP9 Dairy Rd BL Tier 3 0.52 BP12 High St - West BL Tier 2 0.56 BP15 High St - East BL Tier 2 0.37 BP16 Grove Rd BL Tier 3 0.80 BP18 US29 - County boarder SUP Tier 3 5.91 BP19 US29 - Rio Rd SUP Tier 1 1.15 BP21 Fontaine Ave - Interchange SUP Tier 2 0.78 BP22 Commonwealth Dr - North SR Tier 2 0.75 BP22 Commonwealth Dr - North SUP Tier 2 0.16 BP26 Pantops Bridge SUP Tier 1 0.12 BP27 Rte 20 - US64 Intersection SUP Tier 2 0.81 BP28 5th St SUP Tier 1 1.80 BP31 Preston Ave BL Tier 2 0.66 BP33 Meade Ave BL Tier 3 0.41 BP34 Ivy Rd - Ednam SUP Tier 3 1.85 BP37 McCormick Rd - West BL Tier 1 0.39 BP38 Rio Rd - US29 BL Tier 1 0.40 BP39 Hydraulic Rd - East of Georgetown Rd SUP ITier 1 0.67 BP40 Barracks Rd - County BL Tier 2 0.94 BP41 Ivy Rd - East of Ivy SUP Tier 3 3.04 BP42 Three Nothed Rd SUP Tier 3 3.90 BP43 Hydraulic Rd - West of US29 SUP Tier 1 0.31 BP44 US29 - Bypass SUP Tier 3 0.41 BP45 McCormick Rd - East BL Tier 1 0.51 BP47 Avon St Ext - County Boundary SUP Tier 1 0.74 BP48 Peter Jefferson Pkwy BL Tier 2 1.22 BP49 Berkmar Dr - South BL Tier 2 0.66 BP50 Commonwealth Dr - South BL Tier 2 0.76 BP52 Georgetown Rd BL Tier 3 1.09 BP53 Crozet Dr - North BL Tier 3 1.20 BP55 Ivy Rd - West of Ivy SUP Tier 3 3.58 BP56 Earlysville Rd BL Tier 3 0.67 BP58 US29 - Airport SUP Tier 3 1.27 BP59 McIntire Rd SUP ITier 1 0.43 BP60 Avon St Ext - US64 Crossing SUP Tier 1 0.84 BP61 Reservoir Rd SR Tier 3 2.82 BP62 US29 - Hydraulic SUP Tier 3 0.89 BP66 Rte 20 - South of US64 SUP Tier 2 1.17 BP69 Southern Railway SUP Tier 2 1.96 BP70 Rivanna River - South of Pen Park SUP I Tier 2 0.53 Column Descriptions BPID: ID number, corresponds to map Location/Name: general project location Type: SUP is shared use path, BL is bike lane and sidewalk, SR is shared road and sidewalk Final Tier: the final prioritization tier from the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Length: length of the project in miles Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO I Bicycle and Pedestrian Vision List Continued (Table 8-11) BPID Location/Name Type Final Tier Length (miles) BP71 Moores Creek - Quarry Park SUP Tier 2 0.67 BP72 Stribling Ave Ext SUP Tier 2 1.17 BP73 Carters Mountain Connector SUP Tier 2 0.64 BP74 Moores Creek - East of Monticello Rd SUP Tier 2 1.75 BP75 Moores Creek - Pollocks Branch SUP Tier 2 0.96 BP76 Highland Ave Ext SUP Tier 3 1.03 BP79 Moores Creek - Azalea Park SUP Tier 2 0.47 BP83 Melbourne Rd BL Tier 2 0.69 BP85 Carlton Rd BL Tier 2 0.57 BP86 5th St Ext - Old Lynchburg Rd SUP Tier 1 1.84 BP87 14th St NW BL Tier 2 0.59 BP88 Meadowbrook Heights Rd BL Tier 3 0.80 BP89 Rugby Rd - US250 SR Tier 3 0.70 BP90 Sunet Ave Ext - North BL Tier 2 0.32 BP91 Rivanna River - Pen Park SUP Tier 3 1.65 BP92 Sunset Ave Ext - South BL Tier 2 1.34 BP93 Rugby Rd - Dairy Rd BL Tier 3 0.42 BP94 Biscuit Run - 5th St Connector SUP Tier 2 0.90 BP97 State Farm Blvd BL Tier 2 0.86 BP98 Town and Country Ln Ext - Stony Point BL Tier 3 0.29 BP99 Mill Creek Dr SR Tier 3 1.17 BP100 Riverview Park SUP Tier 2 0.41 BP101 Town and Country Ln Ext - Rivanna SUP Tier 3 0.15 BP102 Wakefield Rd SR Tier 3 0.39 BP102 Wakefield Rd SR Tier 3 0.32 BP102 Wakefield Rd SUP Tier 3 0.05 BP104 Bunker Hill Dr SR Tier 3 0.41 BP106 Tonsler Park SR Tier 2 0.40 BP106 Tonsler Park SUP Tier 2 0.36 BP107 Norfolk Southern Railroad SUP Tier 2 1.17 BP108 Madison Ave BL Tier 2 0.35 BP109 Allied St Ext SUP Tier 2 0.30 BP109 Allied St Ext SUP Tier 2 0.15 BP109 Allied St Ext SR Tier 2 0.42 BP109 Allied St Ext BL Tier 2 0.03 BP109 Allied St Ext SR Tier 2 0.17 BP110 Jarman Gap Rd BL Tier 3 0.67 BP112 Brandywine Dr SR Tier 3 0.21 BP113 Berkmar Rd - Airport BL Tier 1 0.41 BP115 Hydraulic Rd - East of US29 SUP Tier 1 0.22 BP117 Holiday Dr SUP Tier 2 0.52 BP118 Angus Rd BL Tier 2 0.93 BP119 College Dr BL Tier 3 0.83 BP120 College Dr Ext SUP Tier 2 0.53 BP123 Brandon Ave SR Tier 2 0.57 Column Descriptions BPID: ID number, corresponds to map Location/Name: general project location Type: SUP is shared use path, BL is bike lane and sidewalk, SR is shared road and sidewalk Final Tier: the final prioritization tier from the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Length: length of the project in miles Bicycle and Pedestrian Vision List Continued (Table 8-12) BPID Location/Name T Type Final Tier Length (miles) BP123 Brandon Ave SUP Tier 2 0.22 BP124 10th St NE BL Tier 2 0.34 BP125 Locust Ave BL Tier 3 1.01 BP126 Richmond Rd SUP Tier 3 4.36 BP127 Foxhaven Farm SR Tier 3 1.04 BP131 Moores Creek - East of Avon St SUP Tier 2 0.41 BP133 Darden Towe Park SUP Tier 2 0.52 BP134 Zan Rd BL Tier 2 0.62 BP135 Massie Rd - Copeley Rd SUP Tier 1 0.74 BP136 Rugby Rd - Preston Ave BL Tier 3 0.30 BP138 College Dr - US64 Crossing SUP Tier 3 0.80 BP139 Rivanna River - South Fork SUP Tier 3 1.05 BP140 South Pantops Dr BL Tier 2 0.90 BP141 New House Dr BL Tier 1 0.34 BP142 Rivanna River - Pantops SUP Tier 2 1.49 BP144 Biscuit Run - Park SUP Tier 3 1.96 BP145 Rivanna Rive - Darden Towe Crossing SUP Tier 2 0.08 BP146 Rivanna River - County Boundry SUP Tier 3 0.75 BP148 Avon St Ext - Rte 20 SUP Tier 3 0.77 BP149 Avon St Ext - South of Mill Creek SUP Tier 2 1.13 BP150 Crozet Dr - South SR Tier 2 0.22 BP151 Moores Creek - 5th St Crossing SUP Tier 2 0.62 BP152 Rio Rd - Park St BL Tier 2 1.73 BP153 Park St BL Tier 2 0.65 BP155 Old Mills Trail SUP Tier 2 7.94 BP156 E Market St - East SR Tier 3 0.88 BP156 Riverside Ave Ext SR Tier 3 0.43 BP158 Foxhaven Farm - Ivy Connector SUP Tier 3 1.54 BP159 Moores Creek - Azalea Park Ext SUP Tier 2 0.65 BP160 US29 - Rivanna Crossing SUP Tier 1 0.92 Column Descriptions BPID: ID number, corresponds to map Location/Name: general project location Type: SUP is shared use path, BL is bike lane and sidewalk, SR is shared road and sidewalk Final Tier: the final prioritization tier from the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Length: length of the project in miles Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Map (Figure 8-2) W Oi t co BP35 �0 V rn 1� h0 Bq ;N � Q ^�Cb ib � 1 70 �Q ��Q m _ BP16 f . I 7@p d m �Q 7a L r. g1 i ca " 165 o e 15� P Co Bpl -a 133 1100�00*p CD L6 ep3j OQ6Q coa 04, s7 e'Os8 I 1 �P54 m � O Q F— m �� 0Q� BP121 0QA$ p48 t off M 1% 4` . O �O cb BP75Qv m Q�rk -, 04_ gP1 ` 030 ro Bf QVP1 B5-1 �Q Qom' w Qoo^BP1 0 i T y I :fferson Area Bike/Ped Plan ABOUT THIS MAP: This map depicts the corridors identified as the regional bicycle and pedestrian network. Regional Corridors All projects are included in LRTP 2045 Vision lists. FEATURES 2 Miles N Parks and Conservation --- Proposed Bike Lane and Sidewalk --- Proposed Shared Use Path Lakes and Rivers — Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk — Existing Shared Use Path +FF Railroads --- Proposed Shared Road and Sidewalk --- Rural Corridors — Existing Shared Road and Sidewalk BP ID Number 8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Urban Map (Figure 8-3) ,n Lkb Wade. �r�ekc iauri-� a Re a to-, m 1�*'e @p133 ^�h 3 0Q o Jefferson Area Bike/Ped Plan ABOUT THIS MAP: This map depicts the corridors identified as the regional bicycle and pedestrian network. Regional Corridors All projects are included in LRTP 2045 Vision lists. FEATURES 0.50.55 Mlles N Parks and Conservation --- Proposed Bike Lane and Sidewalk --- Proposed Shared Use Path Lakes and Rivers — Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk — Existing Shared Use Path +1+ Railroads --- Proposed Shared Road and Sidewalk --- Rural Corridors — Existing Shared Road and Sidewalk BP ID Number 110,21— Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO 98 99 Project Review Template.............................................................n/a Roadway Project Review Pages.......................................................R1-R19 Project Review Template.............................................................n/a Transit Project Review Pages......................................................... T1-T5 • AtCongestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Projected change in # of vehicle -hours of delay (model) Change in transit access measure Length of bicycle and pedestrian improvements Project Impacts Environmental Incorporates Complete Streets elements that aren't in measures (street trees, Design bus shelters, benches or other amenities). List potential elements included. Environmental Potential project impact on wetlands, floodplains, park lands, scenic rivers, Impacts land under conservation easement, and endangered species habitat. Quantative values presented, with qualitative description if necessary. Estimated number of individuals who are minority, in poverty, older than 65, Social or have limited English proficiency, and live within 500 feet of the project (1/4 Impacts mile from a stop for transit). Quantative values presented. Total population of the MPO area is approximately 118,000. Historical Site List of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sites potentially impacted Impacts by the project. Site information presented, with qualitative description if necessary. Inter -regional Impact on corridors that are identified by VDOT as part of the National corridors Highway System (NHS). Qualitative description. Inter -regions transit Impact on inter -regional transit. Qualitative description. Aaintenanc( Project creates a new bridge or includes deficient bridge(s). Project includes and location(s) that VDOT has identified as having a high potential for safety Safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by Project A • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Reduces system delay by about 520 vehicle - hours (5%) No Impact No Impact Project Impacts Environmental Design No Complete Streets elements included. Environmental Project has potential impact to 0.58 acres of floodplain and 0.08 acres of Impacts habitat for endangered species. Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 781 residents, 386 Social minority residents, 218 residents in poverty, 161 residents over age 65 and Impacts 28 people with limited -English proficiency. St. Anne's Belfield Lower School is adjacent to the project. Historical Site Potential direct impact: one potentially -eligible site (DHR ID: 007-5513) Impacts Adjacent sites: one NRHP site (DHR ID: 002-0923) and one site eligible for listing (DHR ID 002-0925). Inter -regions Increases capacity on the US 29/US 250 bypass, which is designated as a corridors Principle Arterial of the National Highway System (NHS). Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. IVlaintenancE Project corridor contains two bridges rated "poor" and 3 rated "fair". Project and contains 0 intersections and at least one segment that VDOT has identified as Safety being priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made . r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Reduces system delay by about 200 vehicle - hours (2%) No Impact 2.1 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts I __M.J_J Environmental Design Potential for benches or other features along the multi -use path. Environmental Project has potential impact to 0.47 acres of floodplain and is adjacent to land Impacts under conservation easement. Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 114 residents, 20 Social minority residents, 5 residents in poverty, 36 residents over age 65 and 0 Impacts people with limited -English proficiency. Stone Robinson Elementary School is adjacent to the project. Historical Site Potential direct impact: one NRHP site (DHR ID: 002-5045) and one site Impacts eligible for listing (DHR ID: 007-5513) Adjacent sites: one NRHP site (DHR ID: 002-0050). Inter-reggnal io Inter-regional ^or No direct impact on National Highway System (NHS) routes. Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. Maintenp-- Project corridor contains one bridge rated "poor" and one rated "fair". Project and contains 2 intersections and at least one segment that VDOT has identified as Safety being priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Reduces system delay by about 100 vehicle - hours (1 %) No Impact 0.9 miles of new bike and 0.5 miles of new pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts A Environmental Project will include bus stops, with shelters as necessary. Street trees, Design benches and other amenities could be included. Environmental No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Impacts Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 1400 residents, 837 Impacts minority residents, 405 residents in poverty, 146 residents over age 65 and 60 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. rater-regionar Increases capacity on US 29, which is designated as a Principle Arterial of the corridors National Highway System (NHS). Inter-regiona transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE Project will not impact existing bridges, and will construct multiple new and bridges. Project contains 3 intersections and at least one segment that VDOT Safety has identified as being priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made . • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Negligible modeled impact No Impact 0.3 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Project has potential impact to 0.003 acres of habitat for endangered species Impacts and 0.09 acres of land under conservation easement. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 69 residents, 39 Impacts minority residents, 14 residents in poverty, 9 residents over age 65 and 3 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Inter-regiona Increases capacity for the interchange of US 29 Business and the US 29/US corridor 250 bypass, which are both designated as Principle Arterials of the National Highway System (NHS). Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE Project contains, but would not impact, two bridges rated "fair". Project and contains 0 intersections and 0 segments that VDOT has identified as being Safety priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by R4 r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Reduces system delay by about 270 vehicle - hours (3%) No Impact 0.8 miles of new bike infrastructure, with pedestrian improvements Project Impacts Environmental Design No Complete Streets elements included. Environmental Project has potential impact to 0.30 acres of wetlands, 1.30 acres of Impacts floodplain and crosses a scenic river. Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 282 residents, 57 Social minority residents, 18 residents in poverty, 49 residents over age 65 and 1 Impacts person with limited -English proficiency. Burnley -Moran Elementary School and Hilltop Child Care Center are adjacent to the project. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Inter -regions Increases capacity on US 250, which is designated as a Principle Arterial of corridors the National Highway System (NHS). Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. Maintenp — Project contains 1 bridge rated "good". Project contains 0 intersections and and at least one segment that VDOT has identified as being priority locations with Safety potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped No modeled impact No change to transit access measure Bike lane and sidewalk improvements Project Impacts Environmental Plan includes many Complete Streets elements, including improved bus Design shelters, street trees, benches, and other streetscape amenities. Environmental Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 1192 residents, 654 Impacts minority residents, 556 residents in poverty, 117 residents over age 65 and 12 people with limited -English proficiency. Potential direct impact: one NRHP site (DHR ID: 104-0083) and one eligible Historical Site site (DHR ID: 104-0076) Impacts Adjacent sites: one NRHP site (DHR ID: 104-0213), three eligible sites (DHR ID: 104-0018, DHR ID: 104-0231, DHR ID: 104-5099) and one potentially eligible site (DHR ID: 104-5088) Inter -regions, Improves conditions on Business 250, which is designated as a Principle corridors Arterial of the National Highway System (NHS). Inter -regions Directly improves access to the primary inter -regional train station (Amtrak) transit and bus station (Greyhound) in the region. Maintenanra Project contains 1 bridge rated "good". Project contains 0 intersections and 0 and segments that VDOT has identified as being priority locations with potential Safety for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by R6 r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped No modeled impact No Impact 0.9 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Project has potential impact to 1.51 acres of floodplain and 0.22 acres of park Impacts land. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 104 residents, 9 Impacts minority residents, 21 residents in poverty, 110 residents over age 65 and 1 person with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts Potential direct impact: one NRHP site (DHR ID: 002-5045). Inter-regiona' corridor No direct impact on National Highway System (NHS) routes. Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE Project contains 1 bridge rated "good". Project contains 1 intersection and at and least one segment that VDOT has identified as being priority locations with Safety potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by R7 r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped No modeled impact No Impact 1.35 miles of new bike and 1 mile of new pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Project has potential impact to 0.22 acres of floodplain. Impacts Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 556 residents, 100 Social minority residents, 45 residents in poverty, 95 residents over age 65 and 3 Impacts people with limited -English proficiency. Charlottesville Catholic School and Charlottesville Waldorf School are adjacent to the project. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. io Inter-reggnal Inter-regional No direct impact on National Highway System (NHS) routes. ^or Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. Maintenp-- Project contains 1 bridge rated "good". Project contains 1 intersection and at and least one segment that VDOT has identified as being priority locations with Safety potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by .. • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped No modeled impact No Impact 0.5 miles of new bike infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental Design No Complete Streets elements included. Environmental Project has potential impact to 2.6 acres of floodplain, 0.03 acres of habitat Impacts for endangered species, and 0.39 acres of park land. Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 2705 residents, Social 1300 minority residents, 687 residents in poverty, 300 residents over age 65 Impacts and 36 people with limited -English proficiency. Barrett Early Learning Center, Salvation Army Child Care, and Jackson -Via Elementary are adjacent to the project. Potential direct impact: one NRHP site (DHR ID: 104-0025) and two Historical Site potentially eligible sites (DHR ID: 007-5513 and DHR ID: 104-5088) Impacts Adjacent sites: five NHRP sites (DHR ID: 104-0072, DHR ID: 104-0083, DHR ID: 104-0081, DHR ID: 104-0273, and DHR ID: 104-5091) Inter -regions Improves conditions on the Fifth Street/Ridge Street corridor, which is corridors designated as a Principle Arterial of the National Highway System (NHS). Inter -regions, transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. Maintenance Project contains 1 bridge rated "good". Project contains 0 intersections and and at least one segment that VDOT has identified as being priority locations with Safety potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made . .. • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped No modeled impact No Impact 1.3 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Impacts Project has potential impact to 0.13 acres of floodplain. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 614 residents, 204 Impacts minority residents, 87 residents in poverty, 67 residents over age 65 and 5 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Inter-regiona corridor No direct impact on National Highway System (NHS) routes. Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE Project contains 2 bridges rated "good" and would construct a new bridge. and Project contains 0 intersections and 0 segments that VDOT has identified as Safety being priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by 1 r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Reduces system delay by about 70 vehicle - hours (1 %) No Impact 1 mile of new bike and 0.8 miles of new pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Impacts Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 95 residents, 23 Impacts minority residents, 7 residents in poverty, 4 residents over age 65 and 0 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Inter -regional No direct impact on National Highway System (NHS) routes. corridors inter-regiona transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. Maintenance Project doesn't contain any existing bridges and may construct at least one and new bridge. Project contains 0 intersections and 0 segments that VDOT has Safety identified as being priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Negligible modeled impact No Impact 0.8 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Project has potential impact to 0.13 acres of floodplain, 0.10 acres of Impacts wetlands and 0.01 acres of habitat for endangered species. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 303 residents, Impacts 129 minority residents, 87 residents in poverty, 11 residents over age 65 and 4 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. rater-regionar corridors No direct impact on National Highway System (NHS) routes. Inter-regiona transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE Project doesn't contain any existing bridges and would construct at least one and new bridge. Project contains 0 intersections and 0 segments that VDOT has Safety identified as being priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made . r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Negligible modeled impact No Impact 0.57 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Project has potential impact to 0.35 acres of floodplain. Impacts Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 131 residents, Impacts 16 minority residents, 7 residents in poverty, 13 residents over age 65 and 1 person with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Inter -regional No direct impact on National Highway System (NHS) routes. corridors inter-regiona transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. Maintenance Project doesn't contain any existing bridges and would construct a new and bridge. Project contains 0 intersections and 0 segments that VDOT has Safety identified as being priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped No modeled impact No Impact 1.4 miles of new bike and 1.5 miles of new pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Project has potential impact to 0.96 acres of floodplain and 0.16 acres of park Impacts land. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 1146 residents, Impacts 671 minority residents, 433 residents in poverty, 50 residents over age 65 and 39 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Inter-regiona corridor No direct impact on National Highway System (NHS) routes. Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE Project corridor contains two bridges rated "good". Project contains 1 and intersection and at least one segment that VDOT has identified as being Safety priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by R14 r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped No modeled impact No Impact 0.8 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Impacts Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 269 residents, Social 156 minority residents, 85 residents in poverty, 41 residents over age 65 and Impacts 12 people with limited -English proficiency. St. Anne's Belfield Upper School is adjacent to the project. Historical Site Impacts Potential direct impact: one potentially -eligible site (DHR ID: 007-5513). Inter -regional Improves conditions on US 250 Business, which is designated as a Principle ^orridors Arterial of the National Highway System (NHS). Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. Maintenp-- Project corridor contains one bridge rated "poor". Project contains 0 and intersections and at least one segment that VDOT has identified as being Safety priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Negligible modeled impact No Impact No Impact Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Impacts Project has potential impact to 0.88 acres of floodplain. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 109 residents, Impacts 11 minority residents, 2 residents in poverty, 27 residents over age 65 and 1 person with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Inter-regiona' Increases capacity on 1-64, which is an Interstate that is part of the National corridor Highway System (NHS). Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE Project corridor contains 3 bridges rated "good". Project contains 0 and intersections and at least one segment that VDOT has identified as being Safety priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by R16 r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped No modeled impact No Impact 1.5 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 72 residents, Impacts 4 minority residents, 1 resident in poverty, 33 residents over age 65 and 0 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts Adjacent sites: two NRHP sites (DHR ID: 002-0003 and DHR ID: 002-0919) Inter-regiona corridor No direct impact on National Highway System (NHS) routes. Inter -regions transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE No direct impact on bridge maintenance. Project contains 0 intersections and and at least one segment that VDOT has identified as being priority locations with Safety potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made . • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Reduces system delay by about 230 vehicle - hours (2%) No Impact 0.4 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts _J _.M.J_J Environmental Project may improve bus stops/shelters, and could include other Complete Design Streets elements. Environmental Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 346 residents, Impacts 141 minority residents, 30 residents in poverty, 94 residents over age 65 and 3 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Inter-regiona corridoo-c No direct impact on inter -regional corridors. Inter-regiona transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE No direct impact on bridge maintenance. Project contains 0 intersections and and 0 segments that VDOT has identified as being priority locations with potential Safety for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by R18 r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Reduces system delay by about 140 vehicle - hours (1 %) No Impact 0.3 miles of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure Project Impacts Environmental No Complete Streets elements included. Design Environmental Project has potential impact to 1.29 acres of floodplain, 0.10 acres of wetland, Impacts and crosses a scenic river. Social Estimate of people who live within 500 feet of this project: 128 residents, Impacts 31 minority residents, 10 residents in poverty, 22 residents over age 65, and 1 person with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. rater -regions Increases capacity adjacent to US 250 Business and parallel to US 250, corridors which are both designated as a Principle Arterials of the National Highway System (NHS). Inter-regiona transit No direct impact on inter -regional transit. MaintenancE Project does not contain any existing bridges, and would construct a new and bridge. Project contains 0 intersections and 0 segments that VDOT has Safety identified as being priority locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by • AtCongestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Projected change in # of vehicle -hours of delay (model) Change in transit access measure Length of bicycle and pedestrian improvements Project Impacts Environmental Incorporates Complete Streets elements that aren't in measures (street trees, Design bus shelters, benches or other amenities). List potential elements included. Environmental Potential project impact on wetlands, floodplains, park lands, scenic rivers, Impacts land under conservation easement, and endangered species habitat. Quantative values presented, with qualitative description if necessary. Estimated number of individuals who are minority, in poverty, older than 65, Social or have limited English proficiency, and live within 500 feet of the project (1/4 Impacts mile from a stop for transit). Quantative values presented. Total population of the MPO area is approximately 118,000. Historical Site List of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sites potentially impacted Impacts by the project. Site information presented, with qualitative description if necessary. Inter -regional Impact on corridors that are identified by VDOT as part of the National corridors Highway System (NHS). Qualitative description. Inter -regions transit Impact on inter -regional transit. Qualitative description. Aaintenanc( Project creates a new bridge or includes deficient bridge(s). Project includes and location(s) that VDOT has identified as having a high potential for safety Safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by Project A • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Negligible modeled impact Increases transit access measure by 2.6% None Project Impacts Environmental Design Bus stops would have new benches, shelters, and other amenities. Environmental No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Impacts Social Estimate of people who live within 1/4 mile of bus route stops: 7787 residents, Impacts 4020 minority residents, 2657 residents in poverty, 890 residents over age 65 and 103 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. rater -regions Increases multimodal capacity on US 29, which is designated as a Principle corridors Arterial of the National Highway System (NHS). nter-regions Provides new or improved service to the primary inter -regional airport, train transit station (Amtrak) and bus station (Greyhound) in the region. Aainten�,.___ and No direct impacts on deficient bridges or locations with a high potential for Safety safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made . r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Negligible modeled impact No impact on transit access measure. None Project Impacts Environmental Some bus stops are likely to have new or improved benches, shelters, or Design other amenities. Environmental No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Impacts Social Estimate of people who live within 1/4 mile of bus route stops: 5150 residents, Impacts 2732 minority residents, 2073 residents in poverty, 544 residents over age 65 and 45 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. rater -regions Improves multimodal capacity on US 250 Business, which is designated as a corridors Principle Arterial of the National Highway System (NHS). nter-regions Provides new or improved service to the primary inter -regional train station transit (Amtrak) and bus station (Greyhound) in the region. Aainten�,. _ and No direct impacts on deficient bridges or locations with a high potential for Safety safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by • At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Negligible modeled impact Increases transit access measure by 1.6% None Project Impacts Environmental Some bus stops are likely to have new or improved benches, shelters, or Design other amenities. Environmental No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Impacts Social Estimate of people who live within 1/4 mile of bus route stops: 8418 residents, Impacts 3657 minority residents, 1872 residents in poverty, 985 residents over age 65 and 89 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. rater -regional No impact on corridors that are identified by VDOT as part of the National corridors Highway System (NHS). nter-regions transit No impact on inter -regional transit. Aainten�,.___ and No direct impacts on deficient bridges or locations with a high potential for Safety safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made . r- 0 At Congestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Negligible modeled impact Increases transit access measure by 3.4% None Project Impacts Environmental Some bus stops are likely to have new or improved benches, shelters, or Design other amenities. Environmental No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Impacts Social Estimate of people who live within 1/4 mile of bus route stops: 4900 residents, Impacts 1237 minority residents, 686 residents in poverty, 837 residents over age 65 and 29 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Titer -regions Increases multimodal capacity on US 250 Business and US 250, which are corridors both designated as a Principle Arterials of the National Highway System (NHS). nter-regions transit No impact on inter -regional transit. Aainten�,.___ and No direct impacts on deficient bridges or locations with a high potential for Safety safety improvement (PSI). Icons from flaticon.com made by ■ AtCongestion Transit Access OPO Bike/Ped Negligible modeled impact Increases transit access measure by 0.5% None Project Impacts Environmental Some bus stops are likely to have new or improved benches, shelters, or Design other amenities. Environmental No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Impacts Social Estimate of people who live within 1/4 mile of bus route stops: 4090 residents, Impacts 2675 minority residents, 2351 residents in poverty, 114 residents over age 65 and 37 people with limited -English proficiency. Historical Site Impacts No potential impacts have been identified for this project. Inter -regions Increases multimodal capacity on the US 29 Business corridor, which is corridors designated as a Principle Arterial of the National Highway System (NHS). Inter -regions transit No impact on inter -regional transit. Maintenance and No direct impacts on deficient bridges or locations with a high potential for Safety safety improvement (PSI). Comments Submitted at MPO Policy Board Meetings.....................................B1-B2 Comments Submitted at Public Hearings...............................................B3-B4 Comments Submitted at MPO Policy Board Meetings Information regarding the LRTP was provided to the MPO Policy Board at most regular meetings between September 2017 and May 2019. Additional MPO Policy Board meetings were held in October 2018, February 2019, and April 2019. Every MPO Policy Board meeting includes a time for public comments at both the beginning and end of the meeting. All public comments directly related to the LRTP, as captured in the minutes for each meeting, have been provided below. >> March 27, 2019 Donna Chen asked whether charging stations for hybrid and electric cars is being factored into the LRTP. She said they will be important in the future of transportation. » January 23, 2019 Sean Tubbs with the PEC [Piedmont Environmental Council] noted that the projects submitted from the area did not score very well on SmartScale. He noted that he realized that funding is low, but the planning is still important. He also noted he was pleased to see that the Free Bridge and the 1-64 corridor are on the visioning list. >> September 26, 2018 Sean Tubbs from the Piedmont Environmental Council spoke about two projects on the LRTP that he hoped would remain on the vision list. The first is the Sunset/ Fontaine connector and the second is the South Pantops connector bridge. >> July 25, 2018 [Following presentation of information at the meeting regarding use of the regional travel demand model.] Sean Tubbs from the Piedmont Environmental Council said he was looking forward to learning more about the transit models. The PEC thinks it is important that the public understand the interaction between transit and these models. He also said they are looking to increase bus ridership. He went on to say that he would like to find a way to secure funding for the proposed bus system from Harrisonburg to Charlottesville. Last September, the Policy Board was briefed on a study on that route and it found that 1,200 people commute from the valley into Charlottesville each day. He said that is a significant number. He understands that funding for the pilot program was not successful this year, but urged the Board to continue to find sources for provide this option in the future and to keep the idea alive. He said he would be curious to know what the model would look like if it were modeled with the latest software. He urged the Board to look at the 2045 model with a larger regional population, a larger urbanized population as the process of the LRTP continues, particularly if there is a possibility of adding Fluvanna or Greene County into the MPO. [The responses to this comment included:] Ms. Mallek responded to Mr. Tubbs saying that the MPO has made the offer to Greene county to join, but they declined the offer. Mr. Signer said there should be a consideration for a bus route between Waynesboro/Staunton to Charlottesville. Mr. Hudson said staff have been thinking about expanding to Fluvanna and Greene counties and the modeling area does include some areas that may be in the MPO in the future. >> May 23, 2018 Morgan Butler from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) addressed two items: 1. Attachment C & D of the staff reports in the (Long Range Transportation Plan) LRTP updates. Attachment C is a list of measures which will be used to evaluate effectiveness of the overall scenarios of projects and Attachment D will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the individual projects. Mr. Butler pointed out that both use roadway level of service and hours of delay. He reminded the Board that those two measures have been subject to "push back" in recent years because they focus so heavily on moving cars and moving them quickly. That is fine for highways, but when talking about urban areas in the city or county, there should be more emphasis on multi -modal transportation and safer streets, not just necessarily results of moving more cars. He expressed that the values used to evaluate success may undercut the transportation goals for the city and the county. He suggested to look at Smart Scale for the congestion category, and notably, rather than use level of service, Smart Scale uses "person through -put" which include other modes of travel and not just vehicles. Similarly, rather than used vehicle hours of delay, Smart Scale uses person hour of delay which is a broader measure that uses all modes of travel. Mr. Butler stated he thought it would be worth considering using the Smart Scale measures, or similar ones, in the LRTP to gauge congestion — if not to replace the measures in the LRTP, then at least to supplement them. [The responses to this comment included:] Mr. zumFelde noted that he did not think the model can calculate person delay instead of vehicle delay, per Mr. Butler's concern earlier in the meeting. >> March 28, 2018 [Following presentation of information at the meeting regarding proposed performance measures for scenario evaluation.] One of Mr. Sheffield's students asked if the LRTP measure re: bike and pedestrian safety would take different demographics into account and will the infrastructure work for all ages. He is concerned about the safety for all cyclists. Mr. zumFelde said the report looks at paths and bike lanes. He said paths are incentivized because they are counted separately as both bike and pedestrian infrastructure, so in that way it would be counted as a measure twice. He noted that in the broader bike/ped planning, Staff will be looking how protected and unprotected bike lanes are assessed. Mr. zumFelde said he welcomed feedback. Ms. Schwing suggested that maybe there could be a weighting of some sort. Ms. Galvin added that she did not want to discourage multi -modal street design. Mr. zumFelde said he was open to hearing how to do that assessment. Travis Pietila, a CTAC representative and an employee at the SELC, first thanked the Staff for all their work on the LRTP. He expressed a concern that under the Environmental and Community Impacts measure, there is nothing touching on the environmental and historic resource impact. In the current long-range plan, there were measures that did that. There are also places in Smart Scale that do measure that. He expressed it would be important to include that information in the narrative for the current LRTP. Mr. Proctor noted that last round of Smart Scale, the projects had a buffer of 300 feet on both sides. They measured anything that was around the area and the it was scored from there. Ms. Galvin said it will be important to include that information. Mr. zumFelde said one of the goals of the LRTP is to include that kind of information in a narrative of the scenario measures. Ms. Galvin reiterated the importance of gathering information on who has put their input on projects. Mr. Sheffield emphasized the importance of that information beyond just the MPO. Ms. Mallek noted it would be critical to "go to where they are" — schools, neighborhoods, grocery stores, etc. >> July 26, 2017 Morgan Butler from the Southern Environmental Law Center addressed the environmental goals & objectives in the LRTP. The second objective under the Environment and Community objectives, he recommended that it read, "enhance or avoid impacting the environment..." not just minimizing the impacts on the environment. Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Comments Submitted at Public Hearings Two public hearings were held during MPO Policy Board meetings to request comments on the draft LRTP document. The spoken comments are provided below. >> April 24, 2019 Morgan Butler from the Southern Environmental Law Center thanked the staff for the hard work done on the LRTP and for the engagement with the public. He noted that it can be a difficult process to get the public to engage, but said it is so important to do so. He went on to say "there are notable improvements in the draft 2045 plan as compared to the 2040 plan, most importantly, the 2045 draft better emphasizes the use of multi -modal facilities (public transit, bike network, and sidewalks). While roads remain a key part of our daily lives, making these alternative options more accessible and convenient is critical to ensure we are meeting the needs of all of our residents while supporting a more environmentally - sustainable transportation system. We also applaud the important high-level changes taking place that will transform transportation in the years to come. One of these is climate change. We are glad the draft recognizes the urgent need to reduce our transportation systems out- sized contribution to regional green -house gas emissions by expanding multi -modal options and better coordinating transportation planning and land -use planning. In other words, ensuring that you can get where you need to go without always having to hop into a car. The draft also recognizes the need to ensure our transportation system should be resilient to the effects of climate change with more intense storms and more severe flooding. We are glad the draft raises climate change, but we encourage you to expand on the discussion in the final version to include a larger focus on our future planet. The draft also recognizes the many uncertainties stemming from changing transportation technology, such as the growth of ridesharing services, electric vehicles and e-scooters, and autonomous vehicles. This shifting landscape will undoubtedly require constant and careful planning including traffic and travel projections. Finally, the shifting of the traffic recommended projects, we continue to support making solutions for the Hydraulic/Route 29 a top priority. As you are well aware, the recent investments in the Route 29 Solutions helped to greatly improve safety and travel conditions along this road. Of the 29/Hydraulic/250 bypass triangle as a key piece of the puzzle, the community has already done a great deal of work with VDOT to identify and develop a set of recommended projects there. The exact form and sequence of some of those projects are always subject to additional tweaking, so we agree with the approach taken in the draft, including placeholders for them on the constrained list while also keeping some of the project descriptions general enough to allow some wiggle room going forward. That said, we do want to ask whether the project consists of extending the left -turn lane from the 250 bypass eastbound onto Hydraulic Road needs to be specifically mentioned and included on the constrained list to make sure that project will be eligible for any federal funding that may be forthcoming. In closing, that you, again, for your hard work on the plan and the opportunity to comment." Neal Williamson from the Free Enterprise Forum said he shared Mr. Butler's comments on much of what he had to say especially about the manner in which staff has brought this forward. "The document is a better document. It is a challenge to work in this environment — it is my third LRTP — and it is definitely much better than when I got into this business. That being said, I agree with Councilor Galvin's request to have the total vision plan costed. I also recognize the challenge of that. It is something I applaud VDOT for, which is project -year dollars. `We don't ever think it is going to get built, so what project year should we user I would suggest footnoting it, creating a 10-year project -year dollars. I believe they need to be inflated by that realm. We also would appreciate, probably not for this iteration but the next one, the project pages should include the SMART SCALE metrics, which are clearly important. I specifically believe that economic development should be called out in the project pages. It is a critical part of what transportation does, and I think that the roadways supporting economic development are critical. I agree with Mr. Butler about the 29/Hydraulic interchange in the projects, and his comments are much more thought out than mine, but I think the manner in which you are proceeding is correct. We do not believe that the LRTP is a place for a climate change treatise, but that is where Mr. Butler and I can differ. Finally, I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I really do applaud the hard work." » May 22, 2019 Travis Pietila of CTAC and from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) spoke at the meeting. Speaking as the Chair of CTAC, he said he appreciated the hard work that went into the LRTP over the past two years and commended Staff for incorporating suggestions from the CTAC members throughout the process. He went on to say, speaking as a member of the SELC, that the SELC appreciate the increased emphasis on multi -modal in this plan because it is clearly a priority for the community. While he knows there is still a long way to go, this draft better reflects it as a priority. He said they also appreciate the draft plan better incorporating climate change, including both the need to reduce our own contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also planning a more resilient transportation system for our community. He continued by saying they also appreciate the fact that the plan addresses some of the important changes that are taking place in how we move about in our community, including the emergence of Uber, Lyft, e-scooters, autonomous electric vehicles, and micro -transit. He noted that these are all changing the landscape of transportation and that it was vital to stay on top of those changes. Finally, he noted they do support the prioritization of the Hydraulic/29 in this plan. He encouraged the Board to continue to explore a variety of solutions for that intersection that will both works and can be funded. Planning District Commission Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO Pavement and Bridge Performance Measures...........................................EA8-11 Highway System Performance........................................................ EA12-14 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Performance Measures ..................... EA15-17 Appendix E, Addendum 3: Performance Based Planning and Programming - Pavement and Bridge Performance Measures Performance Targets In accordance with the requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act, Virginia has established pavement and bridge condition performance targets as reported in Virginia's Baseline Performance Period Report for 2018-20211. This report, submitted to FHWA in October 2018, satisfies the federal requirement that State DOTS submit a Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October 1 st of the first year in a performance period. Performance measures for pavement condition are required for the National Highway System (NHS), while bridge condition requirements relate to structures identified as part of the National Bridge Inventory on the NHS. The pavement condition measures and established performance targets for the 2018- 2021 performance period are indicated in Table 1 below. Table 1: Pavement Condition Measures and Performance Targets Interstate Pavement Condition Measures CY 2018-2019 Two Year Target CY 2018-2021 Four Year Target Percentage of Pavements in Good Condition N/A' 45.0% Percentage of Pavements in Poor Condition N/A3 3.0% Non -Interstate NHS Pavement Condition Measures 2018-2019 Two Year Target 2018-2021 Four Year Target Percentage of Non -Interstate Pavements in Good Condition 25.0% 25.0% Percentage of Non -Interstate Pavements in Poor Condition 5% 5.0% Bridge condition measures and established performance targets for the 2018-2021 performance period are indicated in Table 2 below. 1 Virginia's Baseline Performance Period Report data is through December 2017. z Interstate condition measures are based on four distresses: International Roughness Index (IRI), cracking, rutting, and faulting. 3 During this first performance period, States are not required to establish 2-year targets for interstate pavements; however, Virginia has chosen to establish performance targets and are 45.0% and 3.0% for percentage of pavements in good and poor condition, respectively. 4 During this first performance period, Federal requirements for Non -Interstate NHS pavement condition and performance targets are based on a single distress, IRI. However, Federal guidance outlined in a September 27, 2018 Memorandum on State DOT Targets for Non -Interstate NHS Pavement Measures allows for the use of full distress data when reporting Non -Interstate NHS performance targets. Given the availability of full distress data, Virginia has chosen this approach and reported performance targets for Non -Interstate NHS pavements based on all four distresses. This allows for consistency in assessing the condition and setting performance targets for both Interstate and Non -Interstate NHS pavements. EA-8 April 30, 2019 Table 2: NHS Bridge Condition Measures and Performance Targets NHS Bridge Condition Measures CY 2018-21119 Two Year Tar et CY 2018-2021 Four Year Target Percentage of Deck Area of NBI Bridges on the NHS in Good Condition 33.5% 33.0% Percentage of Deck Area of NBI Bridges on the NHS in Poor Condition 3.5% 3.0% Background/History Virginia's history of monitoring asset conditions and utilizing performance information to determine investment strategies based on available funding levels spans over 10 years for pavements and bridges. VDOT maintains a comprehensive inventory of all pavement and bridges on the state -maintained network. This inventory, which includes location, maintenance responsibility, ownership, and current condition or inspection information, serves as the foundation for life cycle planning, performance forecasting, maintenance and rehabilitation needs estimation, as well as prioritization of work to maximize asset life given available funding. Condition information is also important for communicating with external stakeholders, including the general public. VDOT's commitment to responsible Transportation Asset Management (TAM) practice is demonstrated through VDOT's annual condition data collection programs and its establishment and publication of network level pavement and bridge performance goals. VDOT's current condition measures and performance goals have been in place for many years and are fully integrated into VDOT's budgeting process and investment strategies. The federal pavement and bridge performance measures apply to a limited portion of the network for which VDOT is responsible (less than 15% of all lane miles and 18% of the bridge inventory). Connection to Other Performance Based Planning Documents VTrans, the state's long-range multimodal plan, provides the overarching vision and goals for transportation in the Commonwealth. The long-range plan provides a vision for Virginia's future transportation system and defines goals, objectives, and guiding principles to achieve the vision. It also provides direction to state and regional transportation agencies on strategies and policies to be incorporated into their plans and programs. The most recent approved long-range multimodal plan is VTrans204O. Performance management, specifically as it relates to pavements and bridges, is included in the VTrans204OVision, Goals & Objectives, and Guiding Principles as noted below: EA-9 April 30, 2019 • Guiding Principle 5: Ensure Transparency and Accountability, and Promote Performance Management - Work openly with partners and engage stakeholders in project development and implementation, and establish performance targets that consider the needs of all communities, measure progress towards targets, and to adjust programs and policies as necessary to achieve the established targets. • Goal D: Proactive System Management - maintain the transportation system in good condition and leverage technology to optimize existing and new infrastructure. o Objectives: ■ Improve the condition of all bridges based on deck area. ■ Increase the lane miles of pavement in good or fair condition. Virginia's federally required Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) presents pavement and bridge inventory and conditions, along with the Commonwealth's performance objectives, measures, and associated risks as they relate to the federal requirements. Asset funding, investment strategies, forecasts, goals, and gaps are also included. The TAMP is specific to the NHS and provides the Commonwealth's Transportation Asset Management (TAM) processes and methodology to meet federal requirements. Pavement and bridge projects included in the STIP are consistent with Virginia's reported TAM processes and methodology. The program of projects in the STIP are directly linked to the pavement and bridge objectives outlined in VTrans204O and the TAMP through the strategies and actions that are priorities in Virginia. Funding for Pavement and Bridge Projects There are two key funding sources for pavement and bridge projects, the Highway Maintenance and Operations Fund (HMOF) and State of Good Repair (SGR) program funds. The pavement and bridge funding is used for differing projects from routine maintenance to reconstructive work. Funds are allocated to pavement and bridge projects based on an annual needs assessment process supported by a data -driven prioritization and selection process. The prioritization process is the same for the various funding sources; however, the State of Good Repair program funds are designated for deteriorated pavements and structurally deficient bridges. The SGR program requires funds be distributed proportionality between VDOT and localities, based on assessed needs. More details, including the requirements for pavements and bridges, and the SGR prioritization process methodology, can be found at: State of Good Repair for Bridges and Local Assistance Funding Programs. VDOT has developed a robust asset management program, placing maintenance of the transportation network at the forefront of VDOT's investment decisions. This commitment to responsible asset management practice is demonstrated through VDOT's annual collection of condition data on pavements and bridges along with its establishment and publication of network -level pavement and bridge performance targets. For more than a decade, VDOT has EA-10 April 30, 2019 monitored pavement and bridge conditions using performance information (measures and targets) to determine investment strategies based on available funding levels. In the annual needs assessment process, VDOT assesses 100% of the pavement network on Virginia's Interstate and Primary systems and approximately 20% of the Secondary system. In 2016, VDOT assessed 100% of the Secondary pavement network to create a condition baseline. The pavement condition data is compiled, analyzed and reviewed to report the optimized needs at a roadway system and district level. VDOT's pavement program selects resurfacing projects, in relation to needs, and optimizes the timing of projects through a data -driven pavement management system. For bridges, VDOT follows national standards in performing safety inspections and determining general condition of the structures. Condition assessments are performed by certified safety inspection personnel. The inspection program requires a qualified inspector to complete a "hands-on" review of the structure or bridge during each inspection. By federal regulation, VDOT is required to conduct detailed inspections of NBI structures at intervals not to exceed 24 months. VDOT uses BrM software to store bridge condition and inventory data for each structure and to program, schedule, and track bridge and structure inspections. The data collected during inspections allows VDOT to use a proactive approach to maintenance. Preventive maintenance and timely intervention repairs are performed to avoid and slow deterioration that leads to greater rehabilitation or replacement cost. Virginia's bridge maintenance program is large and complex, so in order to direct its efforts more easily, performance targets have been developed. VDOT uses a prioritization process when determining funding for the pavement and bridge programs and prioritizes work ranging from preventative maintenance to replacement. The prioritization processes take into account similar factors such as condition, cost effectiveness, maintenance history, and traffic volumes. While the systematic prioritization processes are a guide to assist in funding projects, districts direct the work performed as the local experts. How do Pavement and Bridge Projects get selected for Inclusion in the STIP? As noted above, the funding to meet Virginia's pavement and bridge objectives and targets is allocated to projects in the CTB-approved SYIP and is consistent with VTrans2040. Each spring, the public is invited to comment on projects included in the draft SYIP prior to CTB approval. Since the SYIP is the foundation for the STIP, the program of projects in the STIP demonstrates support to achieve Virginia's pavement and bridge performance objectives and targets and is consistent with Virginia's TAMP. EA-11 April 30, 2019 Appendix E, Addendum 4: Performance Based Planning and Programming - Highway System Performance Performance Targets In accordance with the requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act, Virginia has established performance targets for three reliability performance measures to assess the Highway System Performance. All three measures are included in Virginia's Baseline Performance Period Report for 2018-2021 which was submitted to FHWA in October 2018. This report satisfies the federal requirement that State DOTS submit a Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October I" of the first year in a performance period and establishes baseline performance as of December 31, 2017. Performance of the NHS is measured by the level of travel time reliability. The travel time reliability performance measures and performance targets for the 2018-2021 performance period are indicated in Table 1 below. Table 1: National Highway System Travel Time Reliability Performance Measures and Targets NHS Travel Time Reliability Performance CY 2018-2019 Two Year Tar et CY 2018-2021 Four Year Target Percent of Person Miles Traveled on the Interstate That Are Reliable 82.2% 82.0% Percent of Person Miles Traveled on the Non -Interstate NHS That Are Reliable N/Al 82.5% The assessment for freight reliability is based on the truck travel time reliability index. The truck travel time reliability performance measure and performance targets for the 2018-2021 performance period are indicated in Table 2 below. Table 2: Freight Reliability Performance Measure and Targets Truck Travel Time Reliability Performance CY 2018-2019 Two Year Target CY 2018-2021 Four Year Target Truck Travel Time Reliability Index 1.53 1.56 The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approves the performance measures and targets developed for Virginia's surface transportation network. Such targets, including those for Highway System Performance, are linked to the goals and objectives in Virginia's long-range transportation plan, or VTrans. 1 During this first performance period, States are not required to establish 2-year targets for the Non -Interstate NHS reliability measure. EA-12 April 30, 2019 Connection to Other Performance Based Planning Documents VTrans, the state's long-range multimodal plan, provides the overarching vision and goals for transportation in the Commonwealth. The long-range plan provides a vision for Virginia's future transportation system and defines goals, objectives, and guiding principles to achieve the vision. It also provides direction to state and regional transportation agencies on strategies and policies to be incorporated into their plans and programs. The most recent approved long range multimodal plan is VTrans204O. VTrans204O identifies the most critical transportation needs in Virginia to ensure the overarching transportation goals in the long-range plan are achieved. The screening process was informed by a data -driven approach that considers highway system performance measures and targets in addition to other performance indicators. Performance management, as it relates to the reliability of the NHS and freight, is included in the VTrans204OVision, Goals & Objectives, and Guiding Principles as noted below: • Guiding Principle 4: Consider Operational Improvements and Demand Management First — Maximize capacity of the transportation network through increased use of technology and operational improvements as well as managing demand for the system before investing in major capacity expansions. • Goal A — Economic Competitiveness and Prosperity: invest in a transportation system that supports a robust, diverse, and competitive economy. o Objectives: ■ Reduce the amount of travel that takes place in severe congestion. ■ Reduce the number and severity of freight bottlenecks. ■ Improve reliability on key corridors for all modes. • Goal B — Accessible and Connected Places: increase the opportunities for people and businesses to efficiently access jobs, services, activity centers, and distribution hubs. o Objectives: ■ Reduce average peak -period travel times in metropolitan areas. ■ Reduce average daily trip lengths in metropolitan areas. ■ Increase the accessibility to jobs via transit, walking and driving in metropolitan areas. Additionally, the Virginia Freight Element (VFE), a component of VTrans204O, discusses freight system trends, needs, and issues. The VFE also includes freight policies, strategies, and performance measures that guide Virginia's freight -related investment decisions. Projects included in the STIP are directly linked to the Highway System Performance objectives outlined in VTrans204O and associated needs analysis, and the VFE through the strategies and actions that are priorities in Virginia. EA-13 April 30, 2019 Funding for Highway System Performance Projects SMART SCALE, Virginia's data -driven prioritization process for funding transportation projects, considers the potential of a project to improve reliability. In order to be considered for SMART SCALE, a project must first meet a need identified in VTrans2040, thus strengthening the connection between the planning and programming processes. Congestion mitigation, safety, accessibility, economic development, environment, and land use are the factors used to score SMART SCALE projects. Freight considerations are included in the economic development factor. The FAST Act established a National Highway Freight Program, including a freight -specific funding program to highlight the focus on freight transportation needs. Projects eligible for National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) funding must contribute to the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) and be included in the VFE. VDOT uses NHFP funding to construct freight beneficial projects identified through the SMART SCALE process. SMART SCALE screening and scoring results, along with public feedback and CTB guidance, are used to develop the SYIP. Other projects selected for funding are subject to program specific prioritization processes approved by the CTB. All funding (federal, state, and other sources) for transportation projects are allocated to projects in the CTB approved SYIP. How do Highway System Performance Projects Get Selected for Inclusion in the STIP? As noted above, the funding for all transportation projects, including funding for projects to meet Virginia's NHS system performance and freight movement targets is allocated to projects in the CTB approved SYIP, and is consistent with VTrans2040 and the VFE. Since the SYIP is the foundation of the STIP, the program of projects in the STIP demonstrates support to achieve Virginia's NHS and Freight Reliability performance objectives and targets. EA-14 April 30, 2019 Appendix E, Addendum 5: Performance Based Planning and Programming - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Performance Measures Performance Targets In accordance with the requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act, Virginia has established performance measures for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) as reported in Virginia's Baseline Performance Period Report for 2018-2021 t. This report, submitted to FHWA in October 2018, satisfies the federal requirement that State DOTS submit a Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October I" of the first year in a performance period. The CMAQ Program traffic congestion and on -road mobile source emissions performance measures and targets for the 2018-2021 performance period are indicated in Tables 1 and 2 below. The Northern Virginia region is the only area subject to the CMAQ performance measures. VDOT closely coordinated with the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB, of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)), the District Department of Transportation, and the Maryland Department of Transportation in developing the target setting methodology and measures and establishing performance targets. Table 1: Traffic Congestion Performance Measures and Targets Federal Fiscal Year Federal Fiscal Year 2018-2019 2018-2021 CMAQ Program Performance Measures Two Year Target Four Year Target Annual Peak Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) Traffic Per Capita N/A3 26.7 Hours Congestion Mode Share - Percent of Non-SOV Travel on the NHS 36.9% 37.2% Table 2: Total Emissions Reduction Performance Measures and Targets Federal Fiscal Year 2018- Federal Fiscal Year 2018- 2019 2021 CMAQ Pro ram Type of Emissions Two Year Target Four Year Target Total Emissions Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 3.744 4.230 Reduction Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs 1.721 1.985 1 Virginia's Baseline Performance Period Report data is through December 2017. z Traffic Congestion performance targets are applicable only to Northern Virginia. 3 During this first performance period, States are not required to establish 2-year targets for PHED. 4 Total Emissions Reduction performance targets are applicable only to the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC - MD -VA 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EA-15 April 30, 2019 The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approves the performance measures and targets developed for Virginia's surface transportation network. Such targets, including those for the CMAQ Program, are linked to the goals and objectives in Virginia's long-range transportation plan, VTrans). Connection to Other Performance Based Planning Documents VTrans, the state's long-range multimodal plan, provides the overarching vision and goals for transportation in the Commonwealth. The long-range plan provides a vision for Virginia's future transportation system and defines goals, objectives, and guiding principles to achieve the vision. It also provides direction to state and regional transportation agencies on strategies and policies to be incorporated into their plans and programs. The most recent approved long-range multimodal plan is VTrans204O. Performance management, specifically as it relates to the CMAQ Program, is included in the VTrans204OVision, Goals & Objectives, and Guiding Principles as noted below: • Goal A — Economic Competitiveness and Prosperity: invests in a transportation system that supports a robust, diverse, and competitive economy. o Objectives: ■ Reduce the amount of travel that takes place in severe congestion. ■ Reduce the number and severity of freight bottlenecks. ■ Improve reliability on key corridors for all modes. • Goal E — Healthy Communities and Sustainable Transportation Communities: support a variety of community types promoting local economies and healthy lifestyles that provide travel options, while preserving agricultural, natural, historic and cultural resources. o Objectives: ■ Reduce per -capita vehicle miles traveled. ■ Reduce transportation related NOx, VOC, PM and CO emissions. ■ Increase the number of trips traveled by active transportation (bicycling and walking). The program of projects in the STIP are directly linked to the CMAQ Program performance goals and objectives outlined in VTrans204O through the strategies and actions that are priorities in Virginia. Funding for CMAQ Program Projects The CMAQ Program is designed to help States and local governments meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. To be eligible for CMAQ funds a transportation project or program must reduce congestion and improve air quality for nonattainment or maintenance areas. In the Northern Virginia region the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA), a regional governmental body established to plan, prioritize, and fund regional transportation EA-16 April 30, 2019 projects, coordinates the annual programming of federal CMAQ projects. Recommendations for programming are provided through the Regional Jurisdiction and Agency Coordinating Committee (RJACC) with final approval given by the CTB. Projects recommended for CMAQ programming go through an application process and must include an air quality benefit calculation, and a resolution of support from the respective governing bodies. SMART SCALE, Virginia's data -driven prioritization process for funding transportation projects, considers congestion mitigation and the environment. In order to be considered eligible for SMART SCALE, a project must first meet a need identified in VTrans204O. Congestion mitigation, safety, accessibility, economic development, environment, and land use are the factors used to score SMART SCALE projects. The measures associated with the environment scoring factor are consistent with the CMAQ Program performance measures. SMART SCALE screening and scoring results, along with public feedback and CTB guidance, are used to develop the SYIP. All funding (federal, state, and other sources) for transportation projects are allocated to projects in the CTB approved SYIP. How do Projects Get Selected for Inclusion in the STIP? As noted above, the funding to meet Virginia's CMAQ Program objectives and targets is allocated to projects in the CTB approved SYIP, and is consistent with VTrans204O. Since the SYIP is the foundation for the STIP, the program of projects in the STIP demonstrates support to achieve Virginia's traffic congestion and on -road mobile source emissions performance measures and targets. EA-17 April 30, 2019